# Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS



## MJB12741 (Oct 5, 2015)

Why has Israel allowed all the Muslim Palestinian land theiving squatters to remain in Israel?

Israel Palestine: Who’s Indigenous?


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 5, 2015)

All Palestinians without any titles or deeds to their stolen land should not be allowed to remain in Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 5, 2015)

This isn't a new topic but it's one the islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers always choose not to address. Its significance looms ever larger as time passes because the "Pal'istanian arabs have become little more than a drain on the world body and an endless source of revulsion for that arab world as that group has repeatedly failed in its efforts to "wipe the Jooooos from the map". The arab / islamist world, and its Persian loon counterparts have become just stereotypes of the now famous "Islamo rage boy".







Persons who can't think or express themselves clearly usually know it, whether they can articulate it or not. Such persons are the political equivalent of cannon fodder: they'll follow anything that moves confidently and adequately soothes their fears.

Included among the blessings of youth is the assumption that one is invincible, immortal; bulletproof as it were. This and forced conscription into a regressive, hateful and self-destructive politico-religious ideology such as islamism, I believe, are a few of the contributing factors toward the ability of Islam's bearded mullocrats to mobilize cannon fodder in order to achieve this or that politico-religious objective.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 5, 2015)

Hollie said:


> This isn't a new topic but it's one the islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers always choose not to address. Its significance looms ever larger as time passes because the "Pal'istanian arabs have become little more than a drain on the world body and an endless source of revulsion for that arab world as that group has repeatedly failed in its efforts to "wipe the Jooooos from the map". The arab / islamist world, and its Persian loon counterparts have become just stereotypes of the now famous "Islamo rage boy".
> 
> View attachment 51659
> 
> ...



King Hussein of Jordan knew the Palestinians best & how to achieve a lasting peace from them since 1970.  When will those Zionists in Israel ever learn from Jordan?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 6, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't a new topic but it's one the islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers always choose not to address. Its significance looms ever larger as time passes because the "Pal'istanian arabs have become little more than a drain on the world body and an endless source of revulsion for that arab world as that group has repeatedly failed in its efforts to "wipe the Jooooos from the map". The arab / islamist world, and its Persian loon counterparts have become just stereotypes of the now famous "Islamo rage boy".
> ...



Has anyone ever heard of a single Palestinian or Palestinian supporter complaint over Black September?  Golly gee, why is that?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 6, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


The only complaint I've heard from Pal'istanians or their Pom Pom wavers is that the _racist_™ Jordanians still hold a grudge.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 6, 2015)

Hollie said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



So sad that it took Jordan's Black September to finally communicate a lasting peace from Palestinians.


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2015)

*ADDRESS the OP boys and girls.*


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 6, 2015)

Is there anyone who disagrees the BDS movement hurts Palestinians far more than it hurts Israel.  Not too bright.  But then what else can we expect from Palestinian leadership?

BDS Cookbook   » “Targeted BDS” and Why its a Bad Idea


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 6, 2015)

Who are the native Palestinians & who is stealing who's land?   Let's see now, which came first, Solomon's Temple, or the Al Aqsa Mosque?


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 6, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Why has Israel allowed all the Muslim Palestinian land theiving squatters to remain in Israel?
> 
> Israel Palestine: Who’s Indigenous?


 
They were muslims and christian and chose ti stay in stead if running.  They might have been people that actually owned land for generations.  Some returned because they had family living in Israel, they become Israelis.
There were a number of way to go to Israel.  
that ended with Olso

>>1948 until 2001, Israel allowed about 184,000 Palestinians to settle in Israel.<<

>>In November 2012, Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas repeated his stance that the claim of return was not to his original hometown, but to a Palestinian state that would be established<<


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 6, 2015)

Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS 

Sure, some were. Nobody disputes that. So why bring it up?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 7, 2015)

To shut up the propagandists who claim Jews were never in Palestine prior to the Mandate


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> To shut up the propagandists who claim Jews were never in Palestine prior to the Mandate


I don't know who that might be. Even the PLO recognized the native Jews in their '60s charter.

Maybe it is just a straw man.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 7, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > To shut up the propagandists who claim Jews were never in Palestine prior to the Mandate
> ...






 Often repeated by team Palestine, and the PLO don't recognise the Jews if they arrived after the start of Zionism. So no Jew alive is recognised now, isn't that correct ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The consensus now is that all of the people who live there have the right to do so.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 7, 2015)

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least.  The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

•  How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
•  How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"​


MJB12741 said:


> Who’s Indigenous?


*(COMMENT)*

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People."  Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.


The Ohio Scenario 

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley _(territory west of the Appalachian Mountains)_ in the time of the French and Indian Wars? 
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?​
It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;"  or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo:  "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine."  In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving.  The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities  _[__Paleo-Canaanites__, __Amorites__, __Ancient Egyptians__, __*Israelites*__, __Moabites__, __Ammonites__, __Tjeker__, __Philistines__, __Assyrians__, __Babylonians__, __Persians__, __Ancient Greeks__, __Romans__, __Byzantines__, (__Umayads__, __Abbasids__, __Seljuqs__, __Fatimids__), __French Crusaders__, (__Ayyubids__, __Mameluks__, __Ottoman Turks__), and soon the __British__].  (List from Wikipedia --- __History of Palestine__)  _This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History.  This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity.  But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 7, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 But not the ones who migrated to Palestine as insurgents and became Islamic terrorists. Take them out and you would see the problems cease overnight.  But the Palestinian leaders still have it as their charter that no Jews from after the start of Zionism will be allowed to exist when they take over.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 7, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS
> 
> Sure, some were. Nobody disputes that. So why bring it up?



Well, how many Muslim Palestinians were native to the land since antiquity like the Jews are.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 7, 2015)

Probably 90% of them.  Just because the Samaritans, Jews, Canaanites and other indigenous people converted , for convenience, to other religions in different eras: the Roman religions, to Christianity and to Islam from their their original religious practices doesn't change who they are.  The Romans of Rome today are still Romans though they don't worship the Roman Gods.  The Greeks haven't changed because they now are Orthodox and don't worship the Greek Gods.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 7, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Probably 90% of them.  Just because the Samaritans, Jews, Canaanites and other indigenous people converted , for convenience, to other religions in different eras: the Roman religions, to Christianity and to Islam from their their original religious practices doesn't change who they are.  The Romans of Rome today are still Romans though they don't worship the Roman Gods.  The Greeks haven't changed because they now are Orthodox and don't worship the Greek Gods.



How do you like that?  And here I actually believed there were no Muslims at all in antiquity, let alone Muslim Palestinians.   Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 7, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Probably 90% of them.  Just because the Samaritans, Jews, Canaanites and other indigenous people converted , for convenience, to other religions in different eras: the Roman religions, to Christianity and to Islam from their their original religious practices doesn't change who they are.  The Romans of Rome today are still Romans though they don't worship the Roman Gods.  The Greeks haven't changed because they now are Orthodox and don't worship the Greek Gods.







 So you are saying that they are not arabs then, would you like to tell then to their faces that they are not arabs but mongrels come about because arab's raped their ancestors and took them as sex slaves. This means they have no claim to the land and should return to their ancestors lands.

 The only group that have existed for 4,500 years on that land have been the Jews, the muslims were forced out in 1099 after holding the land for just 22 years


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 7, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Probably 90% of them.  Just because the Samaritans, Jews, Canaanites and other indigenous people converted , for convenience, to other religions in different eras: the Roman religions, to Christianity and to Islam from their their original religious practices doesn't change who they are.  The Romans of Rome today are still Romans though they don't worship the Roman Gods.  The Greeks haven't changed because they now are Orthodox and don't worship the Greek Gods.
> ...






I ogten wondered where they came from before 635 C.E. which is when they were invented, and they laid waste to every land they conquered killing all the males and the old females


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Well you see, Monte would have us believe the Jews converted to Islam.  Therefore the over 6 million Muslim Palestinians living in Israel are indigenous since antiquity.  Now I ask you folks, is that Palestinian mentality or what?


----------



## montelatici (Oct 7, 2015)

*"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin"*

*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted*


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 7, 2015)

montelatici said:


> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin"*
> 
> *Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted*



See that.  Was I right or what about Monte?  You see you Zionists, those 6 million plus Palestinians living in Israel are really Jews.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 7, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin"*
> ...



Can they be Jews if the indigenous people are now Christians and Muslims?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

montelatici said:


> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin"*
> 
> *Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted*







 Shot yourself in the foot again monte as your headline says* FORCIBLY CONVERTED *and we all know that those Jews remained Jews and just pretended to be muslims.   And it also says they are not arab, yet they claim they are, that is like you claiming you are Italian while holding American papers................


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Yes as forcible conversion does not count, but the genetic tests show that the muslims are not related to the Jews at all. And the Christians are mongrels from all corners of the Globe.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Which genetic tests would they be Phoney?

Go on, just one link from an unbiased source will do!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,
> 
> The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least.  The definition is often self serving.
> 
> ...


In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities _[__Paleo-Canaanites__, __Amorites__, __Ancient Egyptians__, __*Israelites*__, __Moabites__, __Ammonites__, __Tjeker__, __Philistines__, __Assyrians__, __Babylonians__, __Persians__, __Ancient Greeks__, __Romans__, __Byzantines__, (__Umayads__, __Abbasids__, __Seljuqs__, __Fatimids__), __French Crusaders__, (__Ayyubids__, __Mameluks__, __Ottoman Turks__), and soon the __British__]._​

That is true. The population of Palestine has been in flux for thousands of years. It has been invaded, conquered and occupied. It was the center of major trade routes. Many people had come and gone.

However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built Palestine. They built the cities, towns, and hundreds of farm villages that produced a surplus of food that was exported to other countries.

These are the people of the place. A place called Palestine whose international borders were defined by post war treaties. These are the people who became citizens of Palestine.

Indigenous? How could you say not?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 The ones you provided of course, so why don't you take a look at your own links


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Another Phoney Fail then... hahahaha


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741,
> ...





Yes a place but not a nation, and that place was the Mandate of Palestine that took in Jewish Palestine and arab muslim Palestine. The indigenous people since the roman invasion were the Jews, followed by the Christians 400 years later and the muslims 400 years after that. The arab muslims finally conquered that land  and held it for 22 years before being evicted in 1099. Then the Turks invaded and made it part of the Ottoman empire in 1520 and ruled loosely until the defeat in 1917 that led to the armistice of Mudros that led in turn to the treaty of Sevres. This led to the partition of the Ottoman Empire by the LoN under the Mandate system. The area known as Palestine was delineated into a Jewish part and an arab muslim part to account for the differences in the population numbers. This was not acceptable to the arab muslims after having already agreed to the partition so they demanded everything and now have nothing


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






 No you are the failure as you saw the sections that were reposted of your links and did your usual runner


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You did not answer the questions.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish immigration associate with the Balfour Declaration started nearly  century ago.  At what point are the Jewish people eligible to be called "indigenous" under your criteria.  When, in the course of events, the Arab indigenous population ceases to be a population constituent of the region, and are replaced by the new constituent, is the new constituent the indigenous population?  _(Americans, for just over two hundred years, have controlled about four-fifths of America to date.  At what point are the Americans indigenous to America?)_ 

Israel the territory, for whatever reason, is dominated by Israelis.  And the Arab, for whatever reason, have vacated the region.  This is a scenario that has been played out a hundred times or more throughout the regional history.  When do the Israeli become the "indigenous" population? 

Of all the Arab Palestinians registered in the UNRWA CERI Database, how many actually lived in the territory now sovereign to Israel?  They would have to be at least 67 years old.  And how many will be left in 33 more years _(100 years after Israeli Independence)_?   The number grows smaller all the time.  Many of the registered refugees have more of a tie to the Refugee Camp than to any claim they might have had in Israel.

Who is indigenous to where?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> indigenous people since the roman invasion were the Jews



Who were the "indigenous people" BEFORE the Roman invasion?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > indigenous people since the roman invasion were the Jews
> ...






 The Jews of course, right back to 2,500 BCE. No arab muslims for another 700 years was there ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


So?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 It proves that the arab muslims have no valid claim to the land and should be forced to leave by force if needed. They have their homeland in Jordan and they did the dirty and ended up in a perpetual war on all sides


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



So, all Palestinians with no titles or deeds wshatgsoever to the land they stole should leave.  Don't you agree?


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



And the "indigenous people" BEFORE 2,500 BCE?

You see, that 2,500 BCE is NOT the start of history as you like to believe!


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



So should those bloody Brits... 40% of them have NO title or deed in the UK you know!

And as for 60% of the Germans having no title or deed... Well, send them back to where they came from!

Don't you agree?


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You did not answer the questions.
> 
> ...



Just a question Rocco...

Are you saying that Native American Indians, you know, the indigenous peoples of the Americas, may not be so indigenous now?

Are the Maya in Latin America becoming less indigenous? Were the Spanish once indigenous in Latin America? 

I fail to see how Israelis can "become" the indigenous people... Were the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans once indigenous to the region?


----------



## Challenger (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> So should those bloody Brits... 40% of them have NO title or deed in the UK you know!



Oi! less of the "Brits" thank you, it's "bloody British" or "b*stard British" or "Perfidious Albion" if you must, I find being called a "Brit" offensive.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > So should those bloody Brits... 40% of them have NO title or deed in the UK you know!
> ...



As a bloody Brit myself I find it... Oh shit wait... Am I a self hating Brit?


----------



## Challenger (Oct 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You did not answer the questions.
> 
> ...



Interesting point. I would say colonisers can never be considered "indigenous" to the territory they colonise, unless perhaps, they interbreed with the indigenous population and they and their descendants evolve a new joint "culture" that becomes associated with that territory. The writer in the OP link is a "Métis" which would qualify, so would Mulattos.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



No such thing, unless you are Phoney...oh, wait he just hates those who disagree with him, and Muslims, of course.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 Never said it was, so why do you lie. I say it is the start of Jewish occupancy of the land and carries on to the present day. Christians can claim occupancy from about 350 C.E, and the arab muslims from about 700 C.E. I did not bother going back any further than 2,500 BCE as the historical records are very poor that far back and we rely on the likes of the Bible and Torah for the evidence.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Actually many more than that as they live in rented accommodation. I have deeds to my property going back to the 1700's when it was bequeathed as a wedding gift to the Earl of Zetlands daughter


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Who has an uninterrupted presence on the land for the last 4,500 years should give you an idea, a little clue it cant be the young religions as they were not invented until the early part of the common era


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...





 Most probably, and one of the Corbynites that wants to see Britain become Islamic.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 8, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Like the Jews did 4,500 years ago and have stayed on the land ever since ?


----------



## Challenger (Oct 8, 2015)

As have the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You did not answer the questions.
> 
> ...


The questions.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"​
Good questions. Can occupations ever be considered indigenous?

Could you provide a link with your answer?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 8, 2015)

Challenger said:


> As have the Palestinians.


Egyptian, Syrian and, Lebanese squatters and land grabbers are not "Pal'istanians" simply by virtue of Arafat assigning an identity to them.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Good questions you made a clumsy attempt to avoid addressing.

When are Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese land thieves and occupiers considered an indigenous population of a non-existent country?


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> I say it is the start of Jewish occupancy of the land and carries on to the present day



At last... Phoney coming to his senses!

Finally admitting that Jewish occupancy started only 2,500 years ago, more or less, and continues today!

It's about time you converted from the 'dark side'!


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Wow, well you are 'safe' then Phoney...

Those 40%+ Brits are in trouble... Where shall we send them? Damn squatters with no deeds!


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You still did not answer the questions.

An Occupation Power is "never" the same as  the "indigenous population."   The "Occupation Power" is the nation that has actually placed the territory under the authority for the hostile army.  (Article 42 of the Hague Convention)

Indigenous population can be the Israelis that have establish a recognized state.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Humanity (Oct 8, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



It was 2,500 years only a few minutes ago Phoney!

What's it to be? 2,500 years or 4,500 years?

Just for clarity you understand!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


So what if Israel has *political* recognition. It still occupies Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


It is hard to keep track when you are just blowing smoke.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, you've claimed that.  It is a very popular Palestinian Claim; especially by HAMAS Jihadist.



P F Tinmore said:


> So what if Israel has *political* recognition. It still occupies Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Recognition is recognition.

The right of self-determination is just that.

You can make your own assessment; and pretend all you want.  I would not recommend that you actually try to practically apply that illusion and operate under that misconception.   Infiltrators and illegal border crossers are treated like the criminals they are.

*QUESTIONs*:  Who did Israel occupy?  What sovereignty or government was occupied?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, you've claimed that.  It is a very popular Palestinian Claim; especially by HAMAS Jihadist.
> 
> ...


Infiltrators and illegal border crossers are treated like the criminals they are.​
What borders have the Palestinians crossed?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, you've claimed that.  It is a very popular Palestinian Claim; especially by HAMAS Jihadist.
> 
> ...


The right of self-determination is just that.​
Do colonialists have the right to self determination?

Link?


----------



## montelatici (Oct 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, you've claimed that.  It is a very popular Palestinian Claim; especially by HAMAS Jihadist.
> 
> ...



The European Jews occupied an area called Palestine.  The Europeans occupied an area called America.  Sovereignty or government has nothing to do with it bozo.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 8, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


The RCC forcibly removed the Jews and the Jews returned.
Presuming, of course, that as a good Christian, you reject the Roman conquest of Judea.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 8, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Correction: The Roman Empire, the Progenitors of the RCC.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > As have the Palestinians.
> ...



And Jewish Europeans, Americans, North Africans and Yemenis are not "Israelis" simply by virtue of the Zionist movement assigning an identity to them, either.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...





RoccoR said:


> Indigenous population can be the Israelis that have establish a recognized state.



How so?


----------



## Challenger (Oct 9, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Really? The Romans took some captives as slaves to be sure, but there is no historical or archaeological evidence of any mass deportations of the population of the Roman province of Judea; they just changed merged two of their provices into one called Syria Palaestina. What you need to remember is that the empire survived on taxation; the Romans weren't interested in extermination or depopulation, unless it was to make an example, something that was rarely if ever, necessary by Hadrian's time. Adherents to Judaism, however, were forbidden to return to Jerusalem once the Temple cult had been destroyed.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Actually, they are. You may wish to understand the criteria that defines statehood for the information.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger said:


> As have the Palestinians.






 Yes like I said the Jews as they were the original Palestinians, even the arab muslims called the Jews Palestinians until it looked like they would be given part of the M.E.

 The neo Palestinians are all recent immigrants to the area so they have less that 200 years of habitation in palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 Mandate of Palestine bestows the title on the Jews who migrated to Palestine, the only occupation was the arab muslims one after they were granted trans Jordan.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > I say it is the start of Jewish occupancy of the land and carries on to the present day
> ...







 WRONG again why do you LIE so much. I said 4,500 years ago, which is 2,500 years before the roman conquest and a little bit more before Christians were invented and later arab muslims.

 So do try and get your facts right next time as you are showing yourself up. By the way do you live close to the pretend Ozzie down in brick lane ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






 Why are they when there are not enough private houses for them to buy, and being on low incomes they cant afford to buy. But they can trace their heritage in Britain back a lot further than the vast majority of arab muslim Palestinians can in Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...







Change of tune ratboy as not that long ago you stated that all the Jews were evicted from Israel and taken as slaves by the roman invaders. The romans decided to enslave the Jews after they fought back and so the ones that become freedom fighters either died or were made into slaves. No such thing as a Temple cult it was Judaism that still carried on throughout the roman occupation and beyond. That is why the Jews worshipped at the West wall because their religion forbade them from entering the temple, which was the domain of the high priests. The Jews returned to Israel all the time and that is why under the Ottomans the population was always majority jews, shown by the census's carried out for the Sanjak of Jerusalem ( Judea and Samaria )


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






LIAR   read it again or is English not your first language ?


----------



## Humanity (Oct 9, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



You need to try and keep up with your fellow zionut Phoney! 

Over half a million homes for sale on the top 10 internet real estate websites...


----------



## Humanity (Oct 9, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



What you need to do Phoney is go back and read YOUR posts, YOUR words!

I am simply quoting YOUR lies idiot!


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 How can it, in the sense you mean, when an International treaty gave all the land to the Jews for their NATIONal home. I keep giving you the link to the International treaty and law that shows this to be so.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






It is even harder when you have to LIE about what other people say


----------



## Humanity (Oct 9, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



It's simply pointing out YOUR lies Phoney...

What's funny is that you then blame others for YOUR lies!


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 Do you want the list again of the terrorist acts by Palestinians in other countries. Or do you mean when they crossed the Green line and attacked Israeli civilians. Don't forget until 1988 the so called Palestinian nation did not exist, and they still have to negotiate mutual borders with Jordan, Israel and Egypt as they promised.............
 Israel has set its borders at the 1967 armistice line and the world recognises these as the borders.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







Yes if they are invited by the sovereign land owners to close settle with the intention of declaring free determination. If you disagree then I expect you to give up your stolen land and make yourself a stateless person


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 So why haven't you done what you demand of the Jews and hand back your property to the owners you stole it from and make yourself a stateless person ?    OR ARE YOU A TWO FACED HYPOCRITE


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 9, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Not so. Israel has never claimed those borders.

Those are de facto (fake) borders


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 9, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Sovereign land owners?

Who would that be? Neither the LoN nor Britain claimed any land.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 For a population of 60 million and most are out of most peoples pockets, where I live you would need an annual income of at least £45 k to afford the mortgage. So how does your reply prove anything other than you arte a complete idiot ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






 Don't need to as I know what I wrote

 2,500 years before the Roman conquest is the same as 4,500 years before now. or is your maths suspect as well ?


 It is you that is LYING when you assign words to me that I never wrote.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Then produce the posts so we can all laugh at your ineptitude and TROLLING


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Just like Palestine is a de facto (a fake) nation and the arab muslims are land thieves


Israel has claimed these borders when they placed a separation barrier along them


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 LINK proving your claim as the surrender treaties say otherwise, or do you ignore these because no arab muslim was present to represent the palestinians ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 By international laws and UN resolutions that accepted Israel as a nation and the Jews as citizens of the land


----------



## Humanity (Oct 9, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Oh they are ALL here for everyone to read Phoney, including you!

I am certainly not wasting MY time to prove you write crap all the time...

It's very clear for all to see!


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH,  now you are being a little coy.  I such have used the term "international lines of demarcation" rather than border.  You are right my fault.  Before the independence of the 1988 State of Palestine, the International Border was with Jordan.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You know as well as I do that:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

All States shall:  Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by *effective border controls* and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents;.​You know as well as I do that is the Israeli Security Barriers had not been constructed, there would be a much greater incident rate of bombings (suicide and IEDs) from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  You know as well as I do that the threat of re-emerge.  Not to mention the threat from "Lone Jihadists --- Large vigilante groups --- DAESH-inspired HAMASniks" in the mix.

*Palestinian Militant Group Threatens to Restart Suicide Bombings Against Israel*
NEWSWEEK BY JACK MOORE 10/5/15

Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad has threatened to resume suicide bomb attacks against Israeli targets in a new video released on Sunday.

The one-minute video, sent out as part of an email statement by the group's armed wing and circulated online by Middle East analysts and via Palestinian social media accounts, is entitled "Al-Quds Brigade - Message Number One." The video shows a purported Islamic Jihad member preparing a beige explosive vest with ball bearings and a detonation button.​In 2001, there were ≈ 40 Suicided Bombing,  in 2002 there were ≈ 47 such bombings,  BUT in the year 2003 when the first 112 miles of the Security Barrier was completed the number of Palestinian suicide bombings was almost cut in half at ≈ 23 such bombings.  In 2004, as the southern part of the barrier was being built, suicide bombing rate was dropped to ≈ 17 bombings, as more of the barrier went up in 2005 the number of suicide bombings recorded went to 9 attacks.  By 2006, when 225 miles of barrier had been completed with a corresponding drop in attacks to a record low of ≈ 9 bombings.  The number of suicide bombing was reduced to one in 2007 and just two in 2008.  While the success in the reduction of the number of bombings was not totally due to the barrier, it made a significant contribution in the counter-terrorism effort.

*AFTER PALESTINIAN LEADER’S INCITEMENT, TERROR GROUP CALLS FOR SUICIDE BOMBERS*
BREITBART by JORDAN SCHACHTEL 5 Oct 2015

Over the weekend, Palestinian terrorists ran wild within the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories, murdering Jewish men and women and attempting to kill infants. Yet, Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas has refused to condemn this violence, instead blaming Israel for defending itself.

Now, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), an Iran-backed terrorist group formed in the 80s with the expressed goal of destroying the State of Israel, has threatened to deploy suicide bombers throughout Israel and the Palestinian-controlled territories, leading to fears that another Palestinian terror campaign—such as the first and second intifadas—is fast approaching.​The Palestinian Government and the individual pro-Palestinian supports seldom stay inside international law.  They know that UN Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) "prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts."  Not that they pay any attention. And they know that the Declaration of Principles promotes the implementation of peaceful means to settle disputes.  So, as to the "border" issue I leave you with this one last quote:

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.  (PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department)
Oddly enough, the Palestinians call this a "Key Fact."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Oct 9, 2015)

montelatici said:


> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin"*
> 
> *Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted*



While this article is spun to accommodate the Zionist Hasbara version of history, it does vindicate what I've been saying all along; the Arabs who conquered Palestine were a tiny minority of the population and took over the estates left by the Romano-Byzantine aristocracy who preferred to leave rather than convert. 

The native population, who were predominantly Orthodox Christian (at least officially), gradually converted to Islam (more as a tax avoidance measure than any forced conversion). Judaism had been persecuted almost by the Romano-Byzantines, long before the Muslims arrived, which is why there was a lot of Jewish support for the Sassanian and later Arab forces who conquered the area.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin"*
> ...


An Islamist-arabist version of history?


----------



## Challenger (Oct 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> The Palestinian Government and the individual pro-Palestinian supports seldom stay inside international law. They know that UN Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) "prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts."



Legitimate acts of resistance against an occupier are not necessarily "terrorist" acts; technically they could be classed as acting in self-defence, at least according to various ICJ advisories.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Nationality is one thing, being  an indigenous ethnic group is another. Read Sand's 






 and




  for the information


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is just a propaganda mantra to support the Hostile Palestinian Claim that Palestine is from the River to the Sea.  Well, its not.  Things change.  And that claim is not a sufficient "just cause" for a jihad or war.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Call it what you will.  But your protest  is too much:  There are two competing theories on sovereignty:

*Sovereignty: Two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster*

International law is dominated by two competing theories of state recognition, with the *“declaratory”* view _(It is the opposite of the constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state. The status of statehood is based on fact, not on individual state discretion.)_  currently in prominence but possibly just beginning its decline in favor of the *“constitutive”* view  _(A state is only a state when it is recognized as such and other states have a considerable discretion to recognize or not.)_. However, if indeed the constitutive view is gaining ground, then its slow and partial re-emergence is forcing us to rethink the nature of the state in international law.​It so happens that in the case of the State of Israel, it meets the condition of both the "declarative" and "constitutive" views.  "The majority of contemporary scholars and commentators favor this theory."(*)

(*)  James L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Humphrey Waldock ed., 6th ed. 1963); Ti-Chiang Chen, The International Law of Recognition: With Special Reference to Practice in the United States (L. C. Green ed., 1951); Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1990); D. J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law (1983).​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 9, 2015)

There are no "competing" theories.  The European Jews went to Palestine intending to remove the Christian and Muslims that were living there and settle the land with Jews from outside Palestine.  That's just a plain fact.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

An opposing view.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinian Government and the individual pro-Palestinian supports seldom stay inside international law. They know that UN Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) "prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First, Legitimate Acts of Resistance do not include the targeting of civilians.  _(Any number of citations can be brought here.)_
Second:  The technical answer is found in Article 68 of the Geneva Code.  _(An offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power are punishable.)_
Third:  The use of the phrase "not necessarily" is NOT affirmative in either direction (legal/illegal).

The ICJ did not render an opinion on whether the actions of the Palestinians were terrorism.  What the court said was that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.  And that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.

This conclusion has been been formally litigated as the ICJ did not examine the facts in their entirety.  If it was a open and shut as you suggest it is, then the ICC would not be having such a hard time with its preliminary investigation.

Further, the ICJ made an "assumption."  The assumption was that the Armistice Line was not moveable without the consent of the parties to the agreement.  Well, normally that would be true.  But the Armistice Line was concluded when the parties to the Armistice made signed Treaties of Peace.  Thus, there is no Armistice Line.  Both the Armistice Agreement contain the legal phrase:  "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved"  That criteria has been met.

There is no agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians that stipulates the boundaries.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 Then produce them, or do you have to alter them first because they prove you to be LYING


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin"*
> ...







 How do we know when rat boy here is losing the argument, easy he starts pontification about hasbara this and Zionist that in a futile attempt at clouding the issue with his LIES. Still waiting for him to produce the link to one of his C&P's that he altered to include both terms as if they were written by the original author. This is why he refuses to answer many of the questions put to him directly and has to have other morons answer for him.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There are no "competing" theories.  The European Jews went to Palestine intending to remove the Christian and Muslims that were living there and settle the land with Jews from outside Palestine.  That's just a plain fact.






 Like the catholic Nazis went to Spain, Portugal, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and south America to do the same thing. And succeeded because they turned the countries into Nazis like themselves. So when will you stand by your convidtions and POV and leave the stolen land you "own" and become a stateless person.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> An opposing view.
> 
> ...







 In actual fact there is no agreement between the Palestinians and Egypt/Jordan either to stipulate any borders. When they were admitted as non voting members of the UN they gave a solemn undertaking to start negotiations on mutually agreed borders with all their neighbours using REs 242 as an example


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 Since when have works of fiction been of any relevance and a valid source of information. Does this mean I can cite any work of fiction that shows the Palestinians to be thieves and illegal immigrants


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 9, 2015)

There will never be peace as long as those Zionists in Israel allow the Palestinian squatters to remain in Israel.  This entire Zionist agenda of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions has to go.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 9, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There are no "competing" theories.  The European Jews went to Palestine intending to remove the Christian and Muslims that were living there and settle the land with Jews from outside Palestine.  That's just a plain fact.







 Another plain fact is that you are a moron that does not know the first thing about the M.E or the Jews that have lived there for 4,500 years


----------



## Humanity (Oct 9, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



You wrote them... 

No need for me to lie Phoney..

Your lies there for all to see... Including you!

Maybe its time to move on from failed neo-marxist to failed zionist and move on...

You can do it... You are used to failing and changing camps!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


The Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese squatters were not indigenous.

You have a need to call squatters "indigenous" because it appeals to your Joooooooo hatreds. Don't let your emotional attachment to hating Joooooooos blur your ability to make rational assessments.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 9, 2015)

Challenger, Hollie, et al,

The argument that Professor Sands put forth is a good peace of work.  that alone doesn't make it correct.  Like the Bohr–Einstein debates, both men were geniuses and both men held polar opposite ideas the nature of light, energy and reality regarding the "spooky action at a distance."  Both men, experts in their field, postulated their individual ideas; but, only one could be right.  In this case, Professor Sands postulates his ideas, and some people use it as evidence that today's Jews are not related to the region which comprises the State of Israel.  Of course, contrary to the Sand's postulate, many studies indicate that Jew and Palestinians and Druze are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews are to non-Jewish Europeans or Africans.  Having said that, and giving Professor Sands the benefit of the doubt, it is still a red herring reative to the Jewish Migration into the Middle East.



Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The issue of the Jewish Migration is not that complicated.  Jews and Christians have aways thought that the origins of the Jewish People was traditionally held to be in the Middle East.  And today's Jewish people, after 2000+ years of migration out of the Middle East to other parts of the world.  Some Jewish groups remained relatively generically isolated while other groups obviously mixed.  This relevant application of this would not support the idea of indigenous status in the early 20th Century Middle East Region (Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip).  Clearly the indigenous population was the resident Arabs that haunted the region.

The relevance of the genetic identification and relationships is totally unimportant.  It does not change the outcome of the 21st Century.  

The idea to return to the point of origin dates back before Sultan Bayezid II ordered Admiral Kemal Reis _(uncle of the famous Ottoman Admiral and cartographer Piri Reis)_ to pick-up Jews expelled by European Leaders (Italy, Spain, Portugal) and return them to the Ottoman Empire, many of which return to the Middle East.


With his firman dated April 5th, 1870, the Sultan Abdul Aziz allocated the "Alliance Israelite Universelle" 2600 dunams of land east of Jaffa for the establishment of a school of agriculture and also granted permission for importing all kinds of tools and machinery free of taxes and customs. As Ben Gouriion, said: "I doubt that the Israeli dream would have been realized if the farm school of Mikveh Israel had not existed." Among Jews that served during the reign of Sultan Aziz: The palace intendent Baruh Cohen, Dr. Mordohay Levi in different cities. In the army Admiral Dr. Isaac Pasha Molho, Fr. Menetes Pasa Galimidi, Dr. Isaac Pasa Galimidi and admiral Elias Pasa Cohen. Upon recurrence of blood libel accusations, Sultan Aziz issued the attached firman dated July 11th, 1866 taking the Jews under his protection. Thanks to this firman the Greek Orthodox patriarchate had to issue encyclicals to all churches, forbidding such practices.  (_*SOURCE:*_ From the book: Ottoman Sultans and Their Jewish Subjects. Quincentennial Foundation, Istanbul, Turkey: 1999.)​
Currently, inside the State of Israel _(as border controls are implemented)_ and the IDF maintain protection over, there are no Arabs-Palestinian under occupation.   And after another half a century, there will be no living Arab Palestinian that experienced living in Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 9, 2015)

Luckily, there is a limited number of Jews worldwide and a far larger number of non-Jews in the region.  Demographics are a bitch. The Boers made a good decision, the Rhodesians did not.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 10, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 Then produce them or are you afraid that everyone will see how much of a LIAR you are and laugh in your face.

 I did not fail I saw the light and realised that neo Marxism was a cancer just like islam, and you have to be hard on a cancer if you want to get rid of it don't you. That is why they operate first to kill the majority of the cancer and then use powerful forces to root out the remaining cells. Just as we have done in the UK with Islamic child rapists and neo Marxist,s


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 10, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Luckily, there is a limited number of Jews worldwide and a far larger number of non-Jews in the region.  Demographics are a bitch. The Boers made a good decision, the Rhodesians did not.








 Means nothing as Israel is a legal country that cant change demopgraphics by International law. The UN would be forced by their own charter to wage war on islam if it tried to overrun Israel and take control.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is just a propaganda mantra to support the Hostile Palestinian Claim that Palestine is from the River to the Sea.  Well, its not.  Things change.  And that claim is not a sufficient "just cause" for a jihad or war.
> 
> ...


The declaratory theory is the one favored by international law.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition *the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,... *~ Montevideo​
Other principles I will reference is the qualifications of a state: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Popular sovereignty where the people are the sovereigns and the legitimacy of a government is derived from the consent of the people.

The universal rights of a people inside a defined territory: The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

So, how do these principles apply to Israel and Palestine?

All of the territories ceded from Turkish rule were called *successor states.* Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. The LoN considered Palestine to be a state. Palestine was called a country ten times in the Mandate charter. When Britain left Palestine it called Palestine a legal entity. Palestine would still exist but would not be independent because the administration was being passed to the UNPC. Britain could not and did not change the legal status of Palestine as it had no authority to do so.

What was said about a Jewish state? That a Jewish state would not be imposed on Palestine against the wishes of the people.

At the termination of the Mandate Palestine was still there. There was no Jewish state.

On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency declared Israel's independence inside Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the people. It neither defined nor acquired any territory.

Now look at the Palestinian's declaration of independence.

*PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS​*
*MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*

*CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND*
*ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
*TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING*
*CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*​


28 September 1948


 I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
All 100% legal and in complete compliance with all legal norms and the UN Charter. Even though recognition by other states was not required, five other countries recognized Palestine's independent state.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements recognized the continued existence of Palestine calling the land Palestine and referencing its unchanged international borders. There was no mention of a state called Israel. There was no mention of any land or borders for Israel.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Palestinian squatters have been on the land for generations.  How much longer will Israel allow these land thieves to remain in Israel?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You did not properly use any of your presentation.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Montevideo Convention (first presentation) did not apply because the declaration was made AFTER the State of Israel was already established.

The Jewish National Council consisting of members of elected representatives of the Jewish Bodies, was the provisional government that declared independence. 

The Jewish National Council DID exercise their right to self-determination; but with external interference from the Arab League defying the resolution of the General Assembly and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. 

A country does not confer sovereignty or independence.  A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography.  The political entity was the establishment of Mandatory as the government.  The Mandate said:  "The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government."

The Armistice of Mudros, The Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, all agree that the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Government did have the intent and purpose to "renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  The parties concerned being the Allied Powers, not some nonexistent government of the Arabs.  By the time the Treaty of Lausanne was signed (JULY 24, 1923), the Mandate and Civil Administration over the territory had been established by the Allied Powers. 

The Jewish National Council DID make application to the 1948 successor government, the UN Palestine Commission, IAW with the Steps Preparatory to Independence of the Resolution.  

You can believe what you will, the All Palestine Government did not act until three months after the Jewish National Council.  Without regard to you interpretation of events, the debate over the territorials were not even issue until the application for admission was considered.  

Finally, the Armistice Agreements were made between "ISRAEL" and the four adjacent Arab League nations.  No arrangement was made between "ISRAEL" and any entity established by the All Palestine Government.

*"He Who Can Destroy a Thing, Controls a Thing" *(A quote from DUNE Frank Herbert)  By Liberty1955 |  Watertown, New York  iCNN Report  
It is a very applicable quote here and can be directly applied to the All Palestine Government.  The APG was dissolved by the Egyptian Government in 1959.  The Egypt (your foreign government) was the proponent for the APG.  Where as the UN admitted Israel to membership in the United Nations in 1949.

*(REALITY)*

No matter what argument you present, the reality is that you can look at any contemporary Map and see that there is a physical manifestation called Israel.   You can actually travel by air, sea or land, to the border of Israel, manned by Israel Border Police.  You can check the record, there is a Resolution 273 (III) Titled the Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations.  And today you can see that there are actually treaties that replaced two of the four Armistice Agreements with Israel and established International Boundaries between the parties.

It is what it is.

I see nothing of a documented or physical nature that establishes or recognizes the State of Palestine until 1988.  And that is NOT full recognition of a country that can stand alone.  And I see a difference in what one Palestinian Faction may believe over another.  Remember, the Western Border of the West Bank is not a permanent border, nor is it an Armistice Line.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You did not properly use any of your presentation.
> 
> ...


The Montevideo Convention (first presentation) did not apply because the declaration was made AFTER the State of Israel was already established.​
Palestine defined its territory. What part of that conflicted with Israel's defined territory?


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


[yawn]


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 So who signed the treaty, that only applied to the nations that were present, for the Palestinians  ? You can hide behand stupidity all you want it wont make any difference.
 As for the declaration it was by a foreign group of arab league leaders that only controlled gaza for a short period of time. They tried to declare on land already accepted by the UN as being Israel. The gaza group had no authority from the Palestinian people of Jordan who had already accepted Jordanian rule.  Read those armistice treaties again and you see that Israel is mentioned in the titles, but Palestine as a nation is not. You see it was Palestine as a mandate that the treaties referred to and the full title of THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE was truncated in the first treaty to Palestine, and this was spelt out in the treaty. This became common usage and carried on until the present day. All the links you produce all say the same thing and this is why you are confused. The nation of Palestine did not exist in name until 1988.

 By the way look at the UN reply to the letter to see why it was denied.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Your prior cut and paste refutes your newer slobbering that "Palestine defined its territory".


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 Because it defined the 22% of Palestine in its entirety after Israel had also declared independence. If this was accepted then I could have declared independence on the same land 3 months after the gaza group did and stirred up the hornets nest


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Defined Territory was discussed in the "declarations and explanations" references to A/RES/273 (III).



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The original Declaration of Independence (14/15/MAY 48) was under the Resolution adopted by General Assembly [181 (II)] as it was outline in Part II Section B --- The Jewish State.  That was the initial condition at the opening of the 1948 War as initiated by the Arab League Forces as supplemented by the the Irregular Forces (Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army).  

The altered conditions, as set by the combat outcomes, wherein the Armistice Arrangements (Green Line) traced the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area) and would remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved.  Israel reached Peaceful Settlements with Jordan (A/50/73  S/1995/83  27 January 1995) and Egypt (Peace Treaty) which reset the international boundary between Israel and Jordan in Article III and the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in Article II.  Both boundaries were declared the "recognized international boundary."  

To date, neither the Lebanese, Syrians, or Palestinians have entered good faith negotiation to establish a permanent peace on appropriate boundaries.  The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) did (unilaterally) make public its recognition that "[t]he 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt;" not further identified.  For all intent and practical purposes, [t]he Green Line is the boundary with the Palestinian territories; with the exception of East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed after capturing it in the Six-Day War of 1967.  

The PLO, in an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister of Israel and the Chairman of the PLO, confirmed that the "PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."  How valid this affirmation is today, is anyone's guess.


NEW YORK CITY (CNN) — Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of not committing to peace agreements known as the Oslo Accords and declared that Palestinians "cannot continue to be bound by these agreements."

"We therefore declare that we cannot continue to be bound by these agreements (Oslo Accords) and that Israel must assume all of its responsibilities as an occupying power, because the status quo cannot continue," Abbas said.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


By the way look at the UN reply to the letter to see why it was denied.​
Link please. I haven't seen it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Defined Territory was discussed in the "declarations and explanations" references to A/RES/273 (III).
> 
> ...


The original Declaration of Independence (14/15/MAY 48) was under the Resolution adopted by General Assembly [181 (II)]​
No it wasn't. What else you got.

You ducked the question.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

You did not read the entire answer.  You stopped where its was most convenience.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I didn't duck the question at all.



RoccoR said:


> The original Declaration of Independence (14/15/MAY 48) was under the Resolution adopted by General Assembly [181 (II)] as it was outline in Part II Section B --- The Jewish State.  That was the initial condition at the opening of the 1948 War as initiated by the Arab League Forces as supplemented by the the Irregular Forces (Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army).
> 
> The altered conditions, as set by the combat outcomes, wherein the Armistice Arrangements (Green Line) traced the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area) and would remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved.



It was corroborated by the UN and UN Palestinian Commission. 

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been *implemented*."  _*SOURCE:*_  Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948​
If there was even the remotest question about the veracity of the issue, the UN would have been more conservative and placed a disclaimer of a sorts on the UNPC statement.  But instead, they made it a matter of open record --- and released it to the general public; amplifying the notice.

Since you cannot get past this point, there is no reason to talk about the discord between career diplomatic corps and the White House.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 10, 2015)

The Pali supporters actually want Israel to declare its borders.  Unbelievable they could be that stupid.  So to please them let Israel declare borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan river.  Bye bye Palestine.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 10, 2015)

That would be the best thing for the non-Jews you idiot.  Israel would not be able to hide behind their Bantustan defense.  And, even the U.S. could not stop the worldwide sanctions.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You did not read the entire answer.  You stopped where its was most convenience.
> 
> ...


The question you ducked.

Palestine defined its territory. What part of that conflicted with Israel's defined territory?​
Your quote.

The original Declaration of Independence (14/15/MAY 48) was under the Resolution adopted by General Assembly [181 (II)]​
From your link:

The State of Israel, in its present form, directly contravened the previous recommendations of the United Nations in at least three important respects: in its attitude on the problem of Arab refugees, on the delimitation of its territorial boundaries, and on the question of Jerusalem.

 The United Nations had certainly not intended that the Jewish State should rid itself of its Arab citizens. On the contrary, section C of part I of the Assembly's 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations, had been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants.​
And there are more violations of resolution 181 besides those mentioned. Israel didn't have anything to do with resolution 181.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 10, 2015)

Arabs start hostilities.
Arabs get asses kicked.
Arabs revise history.
Arabs start hostilities.
Arabs get asses kicked.
Arabs revise history.
Arabs start hostilities.
Arabs get asses kicked.
Arabs revise history.
Arabs start hostilities.
Arabs get asses kicked.
Arabs revise history.
Arabs start hostilities.
Arabs get asses kicked.
Arabs revise history.
Arabs start hostilities.
Arabs get asses kicked.
Arabs revise history.
etc...


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, that was true quote, but only one of many that the discussion had.



P F Tinmore said:


> The question you ducked.
> 
> Palestine defined its territory. What part of that conflicted with Israel's defined territory?​
> Your quote.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

At the end of the day, UN Resolution 273(III) (Admission) was approved without territorial revision on 11 May; one month after the Armistice lines went into effect.





Now were there dissenting opinions?  Of course.  Not everyone was in agreement then; and I very much doubt that they are totally in agreement now.  After all, this territory has been revised several times since the original Armistice Agreements were set.  And I suspect that there will be more adjustments to come.

BTW, you cannot "violate" a Resolution that was (as you are so often fond of pointing out) NON-BINDING in the first place.  While it may have been the correct interpretation prior to the Arab Invasion, after the end of hostilities - through the period to present, the political and military situation has changed several time.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, that was true quote, but only one of many that the discussion had.
> 
> ...


Nice 1949 map of Palestine, thanks.

Every map that I have seen shows Israel inside the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be considered in any way to be political or territorial boundaries. Why don't they show Israel's defined territory on any map? How can we tell if Palestine's defined territory conflicts with Israel's defined territory If Israel's is not shown?

You say that Israel's territory was not revised. Revised from what?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 11, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Because it didn't as the group doing the defining only had control of gaza . Plus they could not declare on land already declared so they did not define any land


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 11, 2015)

Yet you have posted a link to it haven't you in the past


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 11, 2015)

Just posting your POV without explanation is not valid, so explain why the Israelis did not use 181 and the terms of the mandate to declare independence.

 Your question was answered just that the answer is not the one you wanted to see


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 11, 2015)

But it is shown as the red lines marking the armistice lines agreed by Israel and the other nations extant at the time. Sorry to say but palestine was not one of them and so was not included in any talks. You cant keep saying that the borders set down by the LoN as the mandate for Palestine are the borders of the nation of Palestine when no nation existed until 1988.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 11, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...





So how come after 1949 the arab muslims were still living in Israel while the Jews had been evicted from the west bank and gaza.    A contravention of 181 and the mandate and the UN charter.

The only arab muslims driven out were those that took up arms against the Jews and became traitors to the nation of Israel, this was covered by Intermnetinal laws of the time and was outside the scope of 1871.

No legal right of return is embodied in international law, if it was then mecca. medina and Jerusalem would be wholly Jewish again

The homes and property of Jews in gaza and the west bank were also seized and used by tens of thousands of  "refugees" from Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Saudi that stayed after the failed invasion and genocide.

Yes there are many more violations of 181 that mean nothing as it was just a recommendation and was not empowered in law.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 11, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, I'll try to explain.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nice 1949 map of Palestine, thanks.
> 
> Every map that I have seen shows Israel inside the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be considered in any way to be political or territorial boundaries. Why don't they show Israel's defined territory on any map? How can we tell if Palestine's defined territory conflicts with Israel's defined territory If Israel's is not shown?
> 
> You say that Israel's territory was not revised. Revised from what?


*(COMMENT)*

You have to look at the Maps, that represent the geopolitical and military conditions, as a snapshot in time.  It constitutes the how the extent of control evolved.


[

  ​
The first map shows you the geopolitical condition the Provisional Government of Israel initially accepted at the time it declared independence (15 May 1948).   There was no question that at the outset, the Arab Forces made significant gains particularly in the West Bank, but by June, the battlefield engagements changed.  Israeli Forces in the north and northwest, in pursuit to maintain contract and engage with the Arab Forces, pushed the forward edge of the battle area (FEBA) all the way to the Lebanese border, and in doing so, gained control of the northern area that was designated by the Partition Plan to the Arab State.  In the mean time, the Arab Forces to the south were routed, pushing the FEBA to a line that is formed between what is today the Rafah Border Crossing to the Nitzana Border Outpost (_later to become the International Border between Israel and Egypt by treaty_).  Having attrited the West Bank northern Arab Force, and southern area forces, the Main Supply Route (MSR) on the Beershiva Highway pushing the FEBA north --- securing a significant portion of the area in pursuit of retreating forces.  Again, some of this territory, which was to be allocated to the Arab State, was lost to Israeli control in the wake of the strategic withdrawal by retreating Arab Forces.  Israel grew beyond the partition lines, gaining more defensible borders, because Arab Forces were attrited to the point that they were no longer combat effective.

In effect, the attack by 5 Arab Military Formations (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) which the Arab Forces believed would be nearly an assured success --- turned into a decisive victory for Israel.   The Armistice Lines have to be examined to determine if they exist into modern times, as it pertains to Palestine.

*(DIRECTION - DIRECT QUESTION - DIRECT ANSWER)*


Q:  How can we tell if Palestine's defined territory conflicts with Israel's defined territory If Israel's is not shown?

A:  *It cannot.*  And in some cases, that may be a good thing, or it may be a bad thing.

In this Discussion Group, the controversy as to whether the lack of established borders for Palestine certainly is not surprising.  But then, if there are no borders international agreed upon, how can the UN General Assembly give recognition of The State of Israel or the State of Palestine?  And if there are no borders then on what criteria is the widespread condemnation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank based upon; and charged as illegal?

When the politics is all scraped away, this is a border dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  And in the case of the Palestinians, neither any UN Resolution of acknowledging Palestine as a State, nor the earlier International Court of Justice (ICJ) condemnation of the construction of Israel’s security fence, contained any express or implied borders determinations.  In fact, the entire criteria by which the ICJ arrived at the conclusion that the Security Barrier was _de facto_ annexation and contrary to international law, --- is suspect. ​Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 11, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, I'll try to explain.
> 
> ...




So true.  And let us not forget what the Arab countries did to their Palestinians during the 67 war.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 11, 2015)

P F Tinmore,   et al,

This is a "Thought Question."



P F Tinmore said:


> Nice 1949 map of Palestine, thanks.
> 
> Every map that I have seen shows Israel inside the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be considered in any way to be political or territorial boundaries. Why don't they show Israel's defined territory on any map? How can we tell if Palestine's defined territory conflicts with Israel's defined territory If Israel's is not shown?
> 
> You say that Israel's territory was not revised. Revised from what?


*(COMMENT)*

I've address this before in other ways.

*(QUESTIONs)*

If Palestine has no "defined borders" THEN how can the Israeli Settlements in Area "C" be illegal?

If Palestine has no "defined borders" THEN how can any international laws apply to a domestic issue?  (IAC 'vs' NIAC)!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 11, 2015)

The European Jews colonized Palestine.  They were from Europe.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 11, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The European Jews colonized Palestine.  They were from Europe.



You're correct; Many Jews expelled from Israel by the Roman Empire did indeed remain in Europe and then came back to Israel after WWII.
I'm sure you purposely skipped over the massive documentation left by European Rabbis over the millennia.
You know, the Writings, The Men Of The Great Assembly, The Tannaim, The Amoraim, The Rishonim, The Acharonim, The Gaonim.
But I guess all those Books and Responsa were just fabricated in the last 60 years or so.


----------



## rylah (Oct 11, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The European Jews colonized Palestine.  They were from Europe.



so? They still were in majority the same families from the Judea and Levite tribes. While the so called balestinians are arabs from Saudia  Egypt and Syria with no long term roots or distinct culture of the land. They are Arabs (says all-arab peninsula)  who demand to live in Judea, the land of the tribe Jews bare name of.

Arabs from Arabia, Jews from Judea.

Welcome.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 11, 2015)

He wont accept your post as being relevant and because it goes against his POV and beliefes he will ignore what it says and keep asking the same stupid questions over and over again. Reduce the answers to short ones with links to facts and keep them filed for future use.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 11, 2015)

Let's hear it from the horse's mouth:


----------



## Roudy (Oct 11, 2015)

montelatici said:


> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin"*
> 
> *Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted*



With the Crusaders' slaughters -- including mass murder in 1099 of all the 70,000 Muslims in Jerusalem -- the deterioration of the land in Palestine acelerated.

... Massacres and the fear of massacre had greatly reduced the number of Jews in Palestine and Christians in Syria.[87]The "vast majority" remaining in Palestine was "native Christians," of "mixed origin ... carelessly known as Christian Arabs."[88]
Because the population was "decimated" by the endemic massacres, disease, famine, and wars, one Muslim ruler "brought in Turks and Negroes." Another "had Berbers, Slavs, Greeks and Dailamites." The Kurdish conqueror,[89] "Saladin, introduced more Turks, and some Kurds."[90]

"The flower of the Saracenes who fought the Crusaders were Turks," chronicled Philip Graves.[91] "The Mamluks brought armies of Georgians, and Circasians. For his personal security each monarch relied on his own purchase."[92] "In the Palestinian towns Greek was the common tongue..." [93] In 1296, 18,000 'tents" -- families -- of Tartars entered and settled in the land of Palestine. [94]

*Thus, not only was Arab rule "extraordinarily short," but the "pure Arab peoples in Palestine for millennia" -- a romanticized notion discredited by serious scholars -- actually consisted of a non-Arabian, multi-ethnic procession of immirants.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 11, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> This is a "Thought Question."
> 
> ...


Now answer that assuming that Palestine does have defined borders.

Remember that Palestine had already came into existence with defined borders several months before the Mandate could start its administration. And Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 11, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Show me.



P F Tinmore said:


> [
> Now answer that assuming that Palestine does have defined borders.
> 
> Remember that Palestine had already came into existence with defined borders several months before the Mandate could start its administration. And Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't know anything about "Palestine" coming "into existence with defined borders several months before the Mandate could start its administration."   Show me.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 11, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Show me.
> 
> ...


The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.*

Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------------
The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, and it was approved with some caveats by the British and French governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on *29 September 1923*

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


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 12, 2015)

But it doesn't as they themselves have said they need to negotiate mutual borders or take the land of Israel.

Palestine the mandate came into existence then, Palestine the nation did not emerge until 1988


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 12, 2015)

Where does it say Nation of Palestine then ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Where does it say Nation of Palestine then ?


Good question.

How often do you see "the nation of Canada' or "the nation of Brazil" used?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> But it doesn't as they themselves have said they need to negotiate mutual borders or take the land of Israel.
> 
> Palestine the mandate came into existence then, Palestine the nation did not emerge until 1988


They have?

Link?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 12, 2015)

When being created all the time, and as you claim the treaty created the Nation of Palestine so why wasnt it named ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > But it doesn't as they themselves have said they need to negotiate mutual borders or take the land of Israel.
> ...




Then produce the treaties signed by the Palestinian leaders setting out these borders.


State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement (AKA:  Franco-British Boundary Agreements).



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This did NOT establish a border for Palestine _(the country)_.  Nor did the Treaty of Lausanne set the demarcation of Palestine _(the country)_.  The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement set the boundary that gave meaning to the Sykes-Picot Agreement the separation of the British Mandates _(later to be named Palestine and Iraq)_ from the French Mandates _(later to be named Lebanon and Syria)_.

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement relates to the Treaty of Lausanne, only in respect to the demarcation of the territories in Area "A" _(French)_ and Area "B" _(British)_ on the Agreement Map.   The demarcation established by the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement does not detail the entire perimeter of Palestine in any fashion.  In fact, the Paulet-Newcombe Line, in more contemporary times, is somewhat compromised in certain stretches _(See Special Note Below)_:

Article 3, of the Treaty of Lausanne describes the territory of concern to the British (Area "B") for Mandate purposes.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.​You will notice immediately the need for the demarcation line.  No where in the Treaty of Lausanne is the territory of Palestine _(or Lebanon for that matter)_ mentioned or identified.

The contemporary demarcation of the perimeter of the modern day "West Bank" is essentially described by the, now superseded, Armistice Line as it converges in the north and south with the international border between Israel and Jordan as described by Article 3, Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan.

*(SPECIAL NOTE)*

Even understand the above, does not actually represent the nature of the border dispute between Lebanon and Israel.  In the Journal Article, with retired Lebanese General Nizar Abdel-Kader, he points out that some relationships.

Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared that Israel would not be bound by any conditions of the 1949 Truce. In 1978 Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, declaring it a “security zone”. It did not vacate it for the next 22 years, rejecting the requirement of UN Security Resolution (UNSCR) 425 (1978) to withdraw to Lebanon’s “internationally recognised boundaries.” When Israel finally did pull out in May 2000, the new UN Blue Line did not correspond either to Newcomb-Paulet or to the 1949 Truce.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement (AKA:  Franco-British Boundary Agreements).
> 
> ...


Rocco, all of that smoke.

In order for there to be a mandate for Palestine there first had to be a Palestine.

Everything from the Balfour declaration, to the mandate, to resolution 181, to to the armistice agreements, the common term used was "in Palestine." Not to mention the million Palestinians who had Palestinian citizenship.

Now you and the other Israel propagandists are saying that there never was a Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers did not have to call it Palestine.  They could have called it Judea  or any other name they chose.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You raised the issue of the Lausanne Treaty and the Paulet-Newcombe Line as evidence of a national  boundary for Palestine.  I just wanted you to understand that was entirely bogus.

Before there was a Mandate for Palestine, the creation was the Palestine Order in Council.  The very first thing it does is explain what "Palestine" means.

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." 
The term "Palestine" means the "territories to which the Mandate Applies."  It is an entity in which the Allied Powers have established governance.  In 1922, the Allied Powers had not yet made a decision on the final outcome of that territory.

I suspect that the undefined territory used in the Balfour Declaration was called Palestine, all they new at that time was it represented a territory in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in Area "B".  There was no geopolitical subdivision called Palestine in the Ottoman Empire, any more than there is a specific boundary for the Bermuda Triangle.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Allied Powers did not have to call it Palestine.  They could have called it Judea  or any other name they chose.
> 
> ...


They called it Palestine because that was the name commonly used.


Look at the 1949 map that you posted.







I don't see any place here called Israel.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 12, 2015)

What is the issue here?  Do we not all agree there was & still is a territory some call Palestine & that the indigenous Palestinians were Jews?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 12, 2015)

Why who says there must be a Palestine, what law makes it a must and it has to be a law that was in existence in 1917 when all this took place. The powers in control took the place on the map called Palestine and used that as the starting point. It was never going to be a nation or state just a name. Is there a stat of Negev or Sinai, how about Sahara, Gobi, Steppes, Pampas, Badlands etc. get it out of your mind that a nation of Palestine was created for the Mandate to exist as it wasn't. The place could have just as easily been called Judea or Samaria for all the difference the name would make.

 What we are saying is that until November 1988 there was never a nation or state called Palestine, just an area on the map. So called as an insult to the Jews by the Romans.

 Unless you can produce a treaty that specifically states that a nation/state of Palestine with these people as its leaders has been formed by this treaty ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 I can see it mentioned at least 6 times on this map, have you tried getting an eye sight test done ?


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 12, 2015)

Fortunately for Israel the Palestinians have found a near perfect governing replacement for Arafat with Hamas to keep the Palestinians still living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


I don't see Israel on that map at all. I don't see place designated Israel. I don't see any borders for Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Why who says there must be a Palestine, what law makes it a must and it has to be a law that was in existence in 1917 when all this took place. The powers in control took the place on the map called Palestine and used that as the starting point. It was never going to be a nation or state just a name. Is there a stat of Negev or Sinai, how about Sahara, Gobi, Steppes, Pampas, Badlands etc. get it out of your mind that a nation of Palestine was created for the Mandate to exist as it wasn't. The place could have just as easily been called Judea or Samaria for all the difference the name would make.
> 
> What we are saying is that until November 1988 there was never a nation or state called Palestine, just an area on the map. So called as an insult to the Jews by the Romans.
> 
> Unless you can produce a treaty that specifically states that a nation/state of Palestine with these people as its leaders has been formed by this treaty ?


It was never going to be a nation or state just a name.​
Link?


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



OUTSTANDING POINT!  Israel needs to declare borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan river to keep Tinmore & his ilk happy campers.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Why who says there must be a Palestine, what law makes it a must and it has to be a law that was in existence in 1917 when all this took place. The powers in control took the place on the map called Palestine and used that as the starting point. It was never going to be a nation or state just a name. Is there a stat of Negev or Sinai, how about Sahara, Gobi, Steppes, Pampas, Badlands etc. get it out of your mind that a nation of Palestine was created for the Mandate to exist as it wasn't. The place could have just as easily been called Judea or Samaria for all the difference the name would make.
> ...


Who needs a link when you have a military?
As far as your documents are concerned, every time someone proves you're the sole possessor of those lithographs, you rinse and repeat your inanities.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, you don't see.  This is what we call the Ostrich Effect.  _(In Palestinian behavioral observations, the ostrich effect is the avoidance of apparently obvious physical realities by pretending they do not exist.) _



P F Tinmore said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either... 

You do see references made to:

Color Code Box for Jewish Territory under UN General Assembly Partition Plan of 29 November 1947
Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Line
Israeli-Transjordan Armistice Line
Israeli-Lebanese Armistice Line 
But, just because the territory to which the former Mandate applied is not labeled, I don't deny the reality of its existence.

*(MOVING FORWARD --- TO THE 21st CENTURY)*

There six decade old agreement called the League of Arab States, Khartoum Resolution, 1 September 1967, in which the Arab League buries its head in the sand, as if that will make Israel go away, and create what has become known as the "Three No's:  _No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.
_
Many thought that with the Exchange of Letters, that we had moved past that point.  But I see there are still people that think, in their physical reality, that Israel doesn't exist. 

If that were true, then who did the Palestinian State file a complaint against with the ICC, who is the Occupation Force that they are constantly complaining about, and who is it that the fire rockets and mortars against?

If you believe that their is no State of Israel, then you should write your opinion and submitted as a "Friend of the Court Brief."  That would make the issues fall under NIAC and not IAC criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 13, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, you don't see.  This is what we call the Ostrich Effect.  _(In Palestinian behavioral observations, the ostrich effect is the avoidance of apparently obvious physical realities by pretending they do not exist.) _
> 
> ...


Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...​
Uhhh, right at the top. The title of the map is Palestine. I see Lebanon. I see Syria. I see Transjordan. I see Arabia. I see Egypt.* I don't see Israel.*


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Of course you don't, if you admitted that you did then you would have to admit that you are wrong. So you cant see the Israeli defence lines, the Israeli armistice lines or the area under Israeli control on the map


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Why who says there must be a Palestine, what law makes it a must and it has to be a law that was in existence in 1917 when all this took place. The powers in control took the place on the map called Palestine and used that as the starting point. It was never going to be a nation or state just a name. Is there a stat of Negev or Sinai, how about Sahara, Gobi, Steppes, Pampas, Badlands etc. get it out of your mind that a nation of Palestine was created for the Mandate to exist as it wasn't. The place could have just as easily been called Judea or Samaria for all the difference the name would make.
> ...







 Mandate for Palestine and the Order in council that both spell this out.

 Now how about your link to the nations of Palestine in 1923 ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 And all those places are on a map of Palestine, so are they also Palestine ?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I ask, if we both go to the Middle East, and we start at Beit Ur At Tahta, and travel West on Route 443, what do you think we will run into?   If you said, the Israeli Checkpoint at Maccbim you would be right.  And if you don't have the proper documentation, the Border Police will not let you proceed.






P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

And AGAIN!  On the map, you don't see a place or demarcation in the name of "Palestine."  You do see Demarcations for Israel.  And if you actually walk the ground, it would be very difficult to deny in the physical reality the existence of the State of Israel.  The Arab Palestinian that is using a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities --- pertaining to the existence of Israel --- are in denial; and are exhibiting abnormal symptoms of an altered state.  

Border barriers are the physical manifestation of extending self-determination to a defined territory; the reality of which cannot be denied.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 13, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I ask, if we both go to the Middle East, and we start at Beit Ur At Tahta, and travel West on Route 443, what do you think we will run into?   If you said, the Israeli Checkpoint at Maccbim you would be right.  And if you don't have the proper documentation, the Border Police will not let you proceed.
> 
> ...


Occupations have checkpoints all of the time.

What is your point?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


You have demonstrated the syndrome of living in an altered state of denial otherwise known as the debilitating condition called _"Pal'istanian Mentality_"


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore,   et al,

Yes, that is the point.



P F Tinmore said:


> Occupations have checkpoints all of the time.
> What is your point?


*(COMMENT)*

Who is occupying what?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



Tensions increase between Hamas, Salafists - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

*Tensions increase between Hamas, Salafists*
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — The tension between Hamas and Gaza security services against Salafist jihadists has returned to the fore, most recently in a campaign of arrests targeting Salafists. *Hundreds of security checkpoints have been set up to search and arrest Salafists and anyone thought to be connected to them in Gaza City*.



Read more: Tensions increase between Hamas, Salafists - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East


The bolded text was mine.

What was it that Tinmore was whining about? Occupations have checkpoints?


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 13, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Why has Israel allowed all the Muslim Palestinian land theiving squatters to remain in Israel?
> 
> Israel Palestine: Who’s Indigenous?


If jews are indigenous then why they look more Russian,American, Iranian but not Palestinian or Arab.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 13, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> Yes, that is the point.
> 
> ...


Good question. That depends on who you ask. I get say so answers but nothing concrete.

What does a professor of international law say.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,   et al,
> ...



She is right.  The Indigenous Jews have been run out far too long.  But great news --- their now back.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 That they delineate the borders of Israel along the green line


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,   et al,
> ...






 A heavily biased professor that only knows the islamonazi version's of International law


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 13, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Why has Israel allowed all the Muslim Palestinian land theiving squatters to remain in Israel?
> ...






 Because arab and Palestinian never lived in Israel, they are illegal immigrants from the south and north.  Thje jews look like Jews and their DNA matches that of the Jews who never left the Holy Land


----------



## Humanity (Oct 13, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> arab and Palestinian never lived in Israel, they are illegal immigrants



Based on what grounds Phoney?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 13, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > arab and Palestinian never lived in Israel, they are illegal immigrants
> ...







 Arabs are from the south and are a different people to the Jews. The Palestinians are a made up people who called themselves Syrians until 1960


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 13, 2015)

Palestinians have claimed they are direct descendants of Assyrians, Philistines, Canaanites etc,.  Thank God the Palestinians were stupid enough as to never claim they are the derscendants of the lost tribes of Israel.  Israel would have been doomed.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 13, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Israel would have been doomed.



Hashem has a way of working things out.
We have to realize that time is a creation to which God is not subject.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 14, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


Rubbish!


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 14, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 Prove me wrong and you will be the first to do so, but no islamonazi propaganda sources


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 14, 2015)

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741,  et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.



Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago.  I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered. 

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive.  And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.  

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 14, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.
> 
> ...


I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741,  et al,
> ...


Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.

The Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925.[4] It began by granting Palestinian citizenship to "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925"

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
Just like I said.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> The Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese squatters were not indigenous.



Yes they are, far more so than the Zionist colonists from central and eastern Europe.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741,  et al,
> ...







Apart from what do we do with all those who migrated illegally to Palestine after 1923, which would be 80% of the current aqrab muslim population.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 No it doesn't try reading it again


P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 What state would that be then


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 14, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese squatters were not indigenous.
> ...






 So you are saying a foreign migrant from Egypt, Syria or Lebanon are more indigenous than a Jew from Jerusalem ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 14, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


The law did not distinguish any difference. Everyone who normally lived there became citizens of Palestine. That was the only defining factor. Nothing else mattered.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 They became citizens of British Palestine if you read the treaties correctly, which is why they were issued with British Palestinian passports


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 14, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


More Israeli bullshit. Well, that is all you have.

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

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

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What does this have to do with anything.



P F Tinmore said:


> ]
> More Israeli bullshit. Well, that is all you have.
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You quoted something that doesn't even apply in our context.  These two sentences say (in effect):

1)  The Arabs of the relinquished Ottoman territory are different from normal UK Citizens.
2)  The Arabs of the relinquished Ottoman territory are not given UK Citizenship.​
The inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, would fall under the Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Order. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741,  et al,
> ...



Oh now I get it.  So people can just move onto some land & thus they are citizens.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 14, 2015)

You mean like the Jews from Europe and went to Palestine?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Correct and because there was no nation of Palestine they had to have a nationality invented for them. This nationality was British Palestinian.    Unless you can find a passport issued by the Palestinian government of the time that just says Palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> You mean like the Jews from Europe and went to Palestine?







 How about the Catholics from Italy just went to the Americas then, and claimed the lands as theirs because their pope said so ?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 15, 2015)

MJB12741,  et al,

The statement is not exactly accurate.



MJB12741 said:


> Oh now I get it.  So people can just move onto some land & thus they are citizens.


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestine that the Order in Council is referring to is:  The Palestine as determined by the Allied Powers and to which the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  This was NOT some new legal entity created by a WWI event, it was definitely NOT a sovereign state. 

To say that "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine" is to say:  Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  It just allowed for the Mandate Power to issue Passports for Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> You mean like the Jews from Europe and went to Palestine?


I believe I already supplied the one thousand years of documentation that shows Jews went from Judea to Rome back to Israel.
You're really into ignoring material you can find on Wikipedia, Amazon or a Judaic bookstore.


----------



## theliq (Oct 15, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Why has Israel allowed all the Muslim Palestinian land theiving squatters to remain in Israel?
> ...


Idiot,


----------



## theliq (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> The statement is not exactly accurate.
> 
> ...


AND THE AREA WAS CALLED PALESTINE for the majority of the population who had been there for centuries or tens of centuries to be exact........they were NOT THE JEWS, THEY WERE THE PALESTINIANS..FACT...THERE WERE NEVER MORE OTTOMANS LIVING THERE AT ANYTIME<THAN THE PALESTINIANS......the Jews were hardly mentioned as their numbers were so minute.With Respect Rocco.....Steve


----------



## theliq (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,
> 
> The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least.  The definition is often self serving.
> 
> ...


well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You speak yourself that you are wrong.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Interesting link, thanks for sharing.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 15, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like the Jews from Europe and went to Palestine?
> ...



Though completely false, even if it were true, I doubt that the people of Normandy who left Scandinavia a thousand or so years ago, would be welcome to set up a state for themselves in Norway at the expense of the Norwegians, you idiot.

You are ignoring the facts and accepting propaganda, which is what Hasbara editors have published in Wiki.

Now the facts:

"*Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"*

"Though the finding may seem intuitive, it contradicts the notion that European Jews mostly descend from people who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago."

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 15, 2015)

theliq,  et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.



theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated  (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural.  Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England _(from France)_, ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule _(Battle of Hastings.)_.  Today, who is the indigenous population?  Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous.  How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.
> 
> ...


RoccoR I agreed with you and I am sure you will agree with me too. Because Jew want to revive their culture, It means put millions and millions Palestinian in camps around their home land for 70 years and force them to live abroad as refugee and kill them brutally again and again if they lift their voice for free their home land. 
And Roccor Jew don't mix up with other as know. And Roccor you also know that Arab League about 30 years ago offer to jews if they go back to 19 67 border all muslim countries will accept Israel as nation but jew keep avoiding it because they don't trust others or because they are paranoid, if this is the case how come jew culture would be stress free and how and when suffering Palestinian would get their home land free and do you think in this situation peace is possible, specially when all your neighbors are Arab on Arab land jew behaving as a paranoid. And when jew living around the world specially in muslim countries comfortably like iran,afghanistan and Pakistan until 1980 and still living in Arab countries have no problem and whole Europe and  America owned by them and then why they need Israel to trouble innocent Palestinian, please them they are not special race and masya is not coming complete line of Prophets and make the world peace full thansk.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 15, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Just how are you trying to use this information and to prove what.



montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Almost 2000 years ago, (≈ AD 70), Jews were expelled _en masse_ in 70 CE by their Roman conquerors _(The Roman army, led by the future Emperor Titus)_.  So what does the timeline prove to you?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.
> 
> ...


One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > theliq,  et al,
> ...



You must have missed the email. There was an extension granted that grandfathered more recent military conquest. 

Ironically, the grandfathering was endorsed by Islamist nations.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision.  After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > theliq,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous.  The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.  

Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
Article 132,  Treaty of Sevres
Article 16, Treaty of Laussanne
The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures. ​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision.  After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.
> 
> ...


OK, but neither the LoN nor the Mandates acquired any land. They held the land in trust for the inhabitants of the respective newly created states.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741,  et al,
> ...


I agreed but jew have different opinion and they are not coming for peace and keep forcing to innocent palestinian in camps but how long it should end soon.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


OR in my word Israel is gift to jews from coalition in wwii, because jew help them against Germany and this undefined territory was part of Ottoman Empire which was letter on divided in small countries so they can placed Israel in there followed by armed and army support.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


OR in my word Israel is gift to jews from coalition in wwii, because jew help them against Germany and this undefined territory was part of Ottoman Empire which was letter on divided in small countries so they can placed Israel in there followed by armed and army support.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision.  After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.
> 
> ...



No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.  

"ARTICLE 20.

*The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

*To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.*
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League....*.communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire *(which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

theliq said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...







 Why because she posts the truth about your beloved islamonazi terrorists


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


OR in my word Israel is gift to jews from coalition in wwii, because jew help them against Germany and this undefined territory was part of Ottoman Empire which was letter on divided in small countries so they can placed Israel in there followed by armed and army support.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


But who tell to jews that Israel is part of Palestine so follow the order and establish the peace.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


You are more jew than a jew, may be if I will try to convince to some jew would be better.


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 15, 2015)

Lets get Biblical, Biblical...that song sucked. Israel IsNtReal. It's a people. Where were they to go ?
Here.
“And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of *the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.*”

Ya see. Those Bolsheveks are real estate thieves !


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


state if of Palestine dumb.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 15, 2015)

Likkmee said:


> Lets get Biblical, Biblical...that song sucked. Israel IsNtReal. It's a people. Where were they to go ?
> Here.
> “And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of *the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.*”
> 
> Ya see. Those Bolsheveks are real estate thieves !



Tell Ruffles (Roudy) he'll go ballistic.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741,  et al,
> ...







LINK FROM AND UNBIASED NON PARTISAN SOURCE


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741,
> ...







 THE ARAB MUSLIMS CANT BE AS THEY COME FROM THE SOUTH, THEIR NAMES GIVES IT AWAY ARABS FROM THE ARABIAN PENINSULAR


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 PROVE IT OR SHUT UP SPREADING LIES


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 So you are now saying that 10 million Jews are all related to each other and only have 4 great great great great great great grandmothers between them.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 30 years out as they were granted the land in 1923 by the then sovereign owners


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 And still the muslims cant show that they are capable of standing by themselves


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 So who was its ruler, what was its money, where was its capital, what was its flag. And all these had to be in place before 1917 when it was part of the ottoman empire ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > theliq,  et al,
> ...







Want to try and put a date on when military conquest became illegal then


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 Where does it say that, as you know treaties are not open ended to the point that they can be interpreted many ways. What they say is what they mean. And in this case the sovereignty of the land was passed on to the LoN , not the inhabitants of the land. This meant that under the Laws prevalent at the time the LoN could dispose of the land as they saw fit. If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...







 The lands sovereign owners up until may 1948.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 15, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 WRONG you just don't make any sense. Try posting on some islamonazi board in future


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?​
They didn't. Ask Rocco. The British passed the baton to the UNPC.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. *It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people* and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

The PPC decided to recognise the territories under the mandatory system as *“provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.*It follows from this phrase that the mandatory mission is not intended to be prolonged indefinitely, but only until the peoples under tutelage are capable of managing their own affairs.

Class A mandates (Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan) recognised the peoples of these territories to have reached advanced stage of development and their independence could be recognised once they have achieved a capacity to govern themselves. *It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question* (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine *territory* shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. *Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.*

*Partition and the Law - 1948*​


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 15, 2015)

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate.  Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities."  It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(REFERENCE)*

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. ​
Series of League of Nations Publications  VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1  II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The _Palestine_ Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". ​
*(COMMENT)*

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied.  Nor does Article 22 _(in totality)_ does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be _(as in the possibility but not a certainty)_ “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another.  It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination.  In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate.  There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al
> 
> Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate.  Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities."  It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.
> 
> ...


Nothing here disputes my post which makes me wonder about your reason for your post.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al
> 
> Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate.  Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities."  It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.
> 
> ...



The certain communities were the communities formerly of the Turks and included Palestine. The British signed the Covenant agreeing to Article 20, which required that any agreements contrary to the Covenant, which precluded Britain from denying self-determination to the Palestinian people through antecedent agreements, be abrogated.  You are out of your depth, sir.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al
> ...



Where did you learn your version of the Six Days War Where The Muslims Got Their Asses Kicked?
Website?  Which one?
History book?  Please provide the Name and Author.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore, theliq, montelatici, et al,

You,  theliq, and montelatici, clearly responded back-to-back with _(what appeared to me to be)_ the intent to imply _(or support the implication)_ that Article 20 and Article 22 have appended some specific obligation or promise of sovereignty.

Your two sentence reply was intended to suggest that the fact that there is a question of legality in all cases of trial by combat relative to independence is unlawful.  That would be wrong in both the case of Israel _(which was clearly attacked by an act of aggression)_ in which the UN supported Armistice agreed to the lines of demarcation, and the fact that the Arab Palestinians were not party to any Armistice or subsequent treaty which set the new international boundaries.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nothing here disputes my post which makes me wonder about your reason for your post.


*(COMMENT)*

This is not the first time in which you and fellow pro-Palestinians attempt to use the League of Nation Covenant as an obligatory device that suggests the actions from May 1948 on were somehow illegal; and that the Arab Palestinians had some prior established claim on the territory involved.  Or that, in defense of their right to self-determination, the Jewish People did not have the right to defend and retain territories lost in combat by the aggressor _(Arab League Forces)_ who attacked first; with the territory within the demarcation of the Armistice shall remain in control of the Israelis until such in force --- until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved.

REMEMBER:  There is NO Armistice Agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, thus they are not an aggrieved party to the conflict.  They may not attempt to enforce any aspect of the Covenant or Armistice to which they were not a party _(the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case)_.

The only point at which the Israelis might _(remotely) _have had to defend their control of territory was as a result of the Six-Day War (1967); although that was a preemptive strike.  However the parties involved in the Six-Day War were Jordan and Egypt; both of which have resolved their individual claim and complaint by Peace Treaty.  The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the dispute or combat outcome.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Humanity (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, theliq, montelatici, et al,
> 
> You,  theliq, and montelatici, clearly responded back-to-back with _(what appeared to me to be)_ the intent to imply _(or support the implication)_ that Article 20 and Article 22 have appended some specific obligation or promise of sovereignty.
> 
> ...



I think you forgot Syria!


----------



## montelatici (Oct 15, 2015)

The Palestinian Christians and Muslims were parties to the Covenant as a community previously under Turkish rule. Just as the communities in Egypt, Syria, Lebanion, etc.  As I said, you are out of your depth.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, theliq, montelatici, et al,
> 
> You,  theliq, and montelatici, clearly responded back-to-back with _(what appeared to me to be)_ the intent to imply _(or support the implication)_ that Article 20 and Article 22 have appended some specific obligation or promise of sovereignty.
> 
> ...


The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 15, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Yeah --- Yeah ---- "out of my depth."



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

That is an assumption on you part.

IF the phrase "certain communities" meant "all communities," THEN --- it would have said "all communities."  Certain communities imply that there are communities to which it doesn't apply.

Britain never denied the "*Right of Self-determination*" to the Arab Palestinians. 

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​In fact, at the time the Covenant _(18 April 1946, when its assets and responsibilities were transferred to the United Nations)_ was signed (1919) there was no understood or universally accepted enforceable international law that acknowledge the "right of self-determination."   _(Since you claim that there is, please tell me the citation that was in force prior to the UN Charter.)_

Chapter 1, Article 1(2), UN Charter  ---- 
*The Purposes of the United Nations are:*

To develop friendly relations among nations *based on respect for the principle* of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;​The requirement is to develop friendly relations, not to enforce _(but based on respect for the principle of)_ self-determination.  It must be remembered that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not list "self-determination" as a right.  For that reason, the wording is:  "equal rights and self-determination" as two different concepts.

*Self determination (international law)*

_Self-determination_ denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order.  Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties.  For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.”

The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century.  In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination.  This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s.

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum. _Internal self-determination_ may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, _external self-determination_ refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This always circles around.



P F Tinmore said:


> The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

You are implying that Palestine (undefined) had some special status.

It did not.  It was a non-self-governing legal entity.  Israel was a declared sovereignty.  The 1948 was between Israel and the Arab League countries contributing forces. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yeah --- Yeah ---- "out of my depth."
> 
> ...



As I said, you are out of your depth.  Stop making a fool of yourself.


*MANDATES A.*

MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].

A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.

*It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.*

The French Mandate for Syria is drawn on the same lines as ours for Mesopotamia, though not actually identical with it. There is nothing in it to which we desire to object.

The Mandate for Mesopotamia has passed through several stages, tending in each case to further simplification. It has been shown to, and approved by, the French and Italian Governments, to whom we were under a pledge at San Remo to submit it In its last printed form this Mandate was approved by the Cabinet a few weeks ago . . .

As regards the Palestine Mandate, this Mandate also has passed through several revises. When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. It was felt that this would constitute a very serious, and possibly a fatal, objection when the Mandate came ultimately before the Council of the League. The Mandate, therefore, was largely rewritten, and finally received their assent. It was also considered by an Inter-Departmental Conference here, in which the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, War Office and India Office were represented, and which passed the final draft.

In the course of these discussions strong objection was taken to a statement which had been inserted in the Preamble of the first draft to the following effect:— ” Recognising the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute Palestine as their National Home.”

367 [4996]

It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred. On the other hand, the Zionists pleaded for the insertion of some such phrase in the preamble, on the ground that it would make all the difference to the money that they aspired to raise in foreign, countries for the development of Palestine. Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in their case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and, on the eve of leaving for Geneva, suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend.

Paragraph 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows (vide the words italicised in the Draft-;

” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.”

Simultaneously the Zionists pressed for the concession of preferential rights for themselves in respect of public works, &c, in Article 11.

It was felt unanimously, and was agreed by Mr. Balfour, that there was no ground for making this concession, which ought to be refused. . .

During the last few hours a telegram has been received from Sir H. Samuel, urging that, in order to facilitate the raising of loans by the Palestine Administration, which will otherwise be impossible, words should be added to Article 27, providing that on the termination of the Mandate, the future Government of Palestine shall fully honour the financial obligations incurred by the Palestinian Administration during the period of the Mandate. This appears to be a quite reasonable demand, and I have accordingly added words (italicised at the end of Article 27) in order to meet it. With this explanation, therefore, I hope that the Mandates in the form now submitted may be formally passed and forwarded to the Council of the League.

C. OF K. November 30, 1920.

End/ (Not Continued


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 15, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

And just how does this one memorandum alter or make illegal any aspect of the actions actually taken.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This MEMO doesn't change a thing.  It is neither authoritative or directive in nature.

In all political decisions or this magnitude, there will be a dissenting or minority opinion.  Don't let that throw you.  This is merely one of them, of which there were many over the next 3 decades.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 15, 2015)

The Memorandum confirms that the British agreed, on the threat of the French and Italians would not approve the Palestine Mandate, that Palestine was one of the  Class A Mandate and thus the is one of the "certain" "communities" of the former Turkish Empire per the Covenant.

Again, you are out of your depth.  Brainwashed actually.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This always circles around.
> 
> ...


What does a war between Israel and foreign countries have to do with Palestine?

If Israel was attacked by China or Brazil, what would that have to do with Palestine?

Palestine had no military. They could not have been at war with anybody.


----------



## theliq (Oct 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.
> 
> ...


Exactly and as you say the Jews were indigenous after they eliminated the various original peoples of this area, ie Canaanites,Moabites ETC.,so too did the Palestinians become the INDIGENIOUS PEOPLE after the Jews fled or were kicked out by the Romans(The 2nd Exodus as it were) but unlike the Jews earlier... the Palestinians DID NOT SLAUGHTER THE JEWS OR ELIMINATE THEM.Those few Jews that stayed were treated with much resect by the Palestinians...............despite the howling of the Lemmings/Zionistas on here.....who are just a Mob anyway

The partition and the unauthorization of a State of Israel was not sanctioned officially at all........It was a infact an arbitrary  decision by the Western Powers to dump the Jews as far away from Europe as possible....even modern day Uganda at one stage was thought of as a solution for a Jewish State,No Rocco with respect, you are wrong in your summation on all counts,your inclusion of Saxons etc., is just a ploy by you to muddy the waters,of which you are a great exponent,........steve


----------



## montelatici (Oct 15, 2015)

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > theliq,  et al,
> ...



The few Jews that did not convert to the Roman religions and later Christianity, left.  Then the Christians of Roman/Byzantine Palestine, who once were Jewish then Roman Pagans and then Christians converted to Islam.  What's not to understand?  The Jews now in control in Israel are Europeans who have nothing to do with the original Jews that evicted the Canaanites, etc.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 What about the other mandates then, like Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq et al

 By the way Britain was not the mandate they were the ones who ran the Mandate for the LoN who took up the reins of sovereignty of the old Ottoman empire.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al
> ...







 If Palestine was not specifically mentioned then the treaty does not apply so you are wrong again freddy boy


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...







 Everything if you cant produce unbiased and non partisan evidence to support your claims


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Palestinian Christians and Muslims were parties to the Covenant as a community previously under Turkish rule. Just as the communities in Egypt, Syria, Lebanion, etc.  As I said, you are out of your depth.






 Wrong as the Covenant says that they are covered under those not able to stand on their own, which is still the same today as the Palestinians are ably proving


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, theliq, montelatici, et al,
> ...






 Which did not materialise until 1988, before this it was just an undefined area on the map


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...







 And this was solved by splitting the mandate of Palestine into two separate parts. The greater being the arab Palestine later called trans Jordan, and the Jewish Palestine later to be Israel and Palestine. This simple tactic allowed the Mandate of Palestine to go ahead as originally planned.

 SEEMS THAT YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR DEPTH HERE FREDDY BOY


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Memorandum confirms that the British agreed, on the threat of the French and Italians would not approve the Palestine Mandate, that Palestine was one of the  Class A Mandate and thus the is one of the "certain" "communities" of the former Turkish Empire per the Covenant.
> 
> Again, you are out of your depth.  Brainwashed actually.






 And it became trans Jordan or didn't you read the full details ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Why don't you try reading my post before responding?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...





And yet the Palestinians took up arms against Israel in 1947 which led to 50,000 being evicted from Israel as enemy agents.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...




Do you have a link for that?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 I did and it clearly says that the LoN became sovereign land owners before the date of this treaty that was never made international law.

 And once again you resort to biased and partisan sources for your information even though you know they are not truthful. So you lose again because you use flawed information


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








Palestine 1918 to 1948 - History Learning Site

In 1947, the newly formed United Nations accepted the idea to partition Palestine into a zone for the Jews (Israel) and a zone for the Arabs (Palestine). With this United Nations proposal, the British withdrew from the region on May 14th 1948. Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by Arab nations that surrounded in a war that lasted from May 1948 to January 1949. Palestinian Arabs refused to recognise Israel and it became the turn of the Israeli government itself to suffer from terrorist attacks when fedayeen (fanatics) from the Palestinian Arabs community attacked Israel.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Just how are you trying to use this information and to prove what.
> 
> ...



There is no historical evidence of a mass expulsion from Roman Judea in 70CE.  Titus' objective was to destroy once and for all, the Temple cult in Jerusalem.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 16, 2015)

montelatici, et al,

Nonsense.



montelatici said:


> The Memorandum confirms that the British agreed, on the threat of the French and Italians would not approve the Palestine Mandate, that Palestine was one of the  Class A Mandate and thus the is one of the "certain" "communities" of the former Turkish Empire per the Covenant.
> 
> Again, you are out of your depth.  Brainwashed actually.


*(COMMENT)*

In diplomatic discussions, this type of bantering to hammer-out language takes place all the time.  In this case, the MEMO is not talking about the concern for sovereignty or independence of the Arab Palestinian community at all.  In fact, the MEMO does not even mention them.  The issue was on the magnitude and the obligation to the Jewish People relative to the phrase:  "the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home."  This is MANDATE Language --- versus your assertion that it pertains to --- COVENANT Language "certain communities."  Relative to the language being discussed here in this MEMO, the final phrase included the "historical connection" and the MANDATE included all three bits of passage:


"adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"
"recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" 
"the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"

Relative to the meaning of "certain communities" in the COVENANT versus the MANDATE:  It should be noted that the term "communities" encompasses both the Jewish community as well as the Arab community.  Examples:

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed.
rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine
The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities. 

When the language wants to exclusively pertain to the Arab community, it uses the language like:  "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."  Your interpretation that "certain communities" has an exclusive meaning to Arabs is simply unfounded.  The use of the phrase "certain communities" in Article 22 of the Covenant is ambiguous.  It could pertain to any number of communities within the larger group of communities.  It does not pertain specifically (or exclusively) to a specific regional community.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Programmer (Oct 16, 2015)

Original Americans were Mahicans.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.
> 
> ...





RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.
> 
> ...



Depends which theory you believe. British culture remained during the Roman occupation, as did the majority of the population. When the Romans left, the indigenous population continued; true there was some intermarriage, but the bulk of the population just stopped speaking Latin (if they ever did to begin with) and abandonded those funny square houses with their underfloor heating systems. Roman cities gradually disappeared due to lack of use. When the Saxons came, did they come as colonists or conquerors? Did Saxon culture spread or did Saxon genes? The Saxons certainly became the new aristocracy and in 500 years or so Anglo-Saxon became the lingua franca and dominant culture, except in the Danelaw where Norse was spoken. Similarly, when the Normans came, was there a mass influx of Norman people into the country, or just a new governing elite? Recent genetic studies seem to indicate that the indigenous population of Britain has remained fairly constant, with admixtures of foreign genetic material, which tends to support the theory of cultural domination and eventual assimilation as opposed mass migration and native expulsion. 

If an indigenous population adopts the language and culture of a conqueror it remains indigenous, regardless of time. "Judeans" have adopted Iranian, Greco-Roman and Arabic culture and languages over the millenia, to name but a few.  The native population remains indigenous to the area. For Jewish Europeans, north Africans, and Etheopians to claim ownership by virtue of some semitic material admixture in their genome and the writings of a book of fables, is quite frankly, ridiculous.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

So your position is that the Arab League Forces were not acting on behave of the Arab People of Palestine?

You are saying that the Lebanese Forces, Syrian Forces, Jordanian Forces, Egyptian Forces, and other Arab Augmented Forces, had nothing to do with the plight of the Arab Palestinian.

Now that is interesting. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You are trying to scrambling the issue.  

What then was the complaint of the non-existent government?

You are saying that the Arab Palestinian did not ask for assistance from the Arab League and therefore the introduction of the Arab League Forces was an independent act of aggression?

WOW!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Jew left holly land 2000 years ago by roman and now they even don't look like arab they look like european or Iranian because Persian Empire refuge them in Iran and still 29000 jew living there happily. Jew should thanksto Muslim who took over holly land and open the Palestine door for jew as well and establish world first multiculture democracy for 800 years until 1940 wwii. Jew shoule thanks to Muslim, if jew exist in Palestine today the credit go to muslim and jew never respect to those who help to jew. there are many example around that how destroy to those governments who help them in the past. Egyptian,Iranian,Ottomon,German,Birtain and more.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> So your position is that the Arab League Forces were not acting on behave of the Arab People of Palestine?
> 
> ...


It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


And soon world will repeat history and holly land would be given to people of palestine and I hope you will accept the master decision then.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


*BS!*

Quote the passage with link.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You are behaving like dumb or cruel  person. you are defending Israel jew and making story as liked. but you can not change the history and facts figure. Under Ottoman Empire this region was administer from Damascus one of the estate of Ottoman Empire. How dumb you are, please search Ottoman empire.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Soon sovereign owners of holly land will take over and peace will come again under Palestinian rule.


----------



## jillian (Oct 16, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> All Palestinians without any titles or deeds to their stolen land should not be allowed to remain in Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.



Jordan should have taken them. Queen Noor never liked being asked why they didn't let them in.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Because you are not jew as you told me before and you are trying to pose some one  else agenda.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 16, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

I stand corrected --- and --- apologize.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I re-read my comment and agree, it is not correctly representative of the historical event.  You are correct.  The expulsion was from Jerusalem (Great Revolt), by General Titus; not all of Judea.  

Sincerely,
R


----------



## Challenger (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> So your position is that the Arab League Forces were not acting on behave of the Arab People of Palestine?
> 
> ...



Except the arab intervention was not an act of agression, the U.N. accepted the Arab declaration of intent and there were no resolutions condemning the action.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, *they did not lose the war*. *They all exited the war completely intact*.


Madnifique! So, when are "puah 'n robbed" palistanians stopping lying-braying about their "lost land and nation"? Eh?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm not sure this is true.



P F Tinmore said:


> It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.
> 
> How would that change Palestine's legal status?


*(COMMENT)*

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.


The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank.  The Jordanians got what they wanted.
The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship.  The Egyptians got what they wanted.
The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all.  Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left.  It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct.  The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State.  The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> ...



1. The communities existing in Palestine, per the Covenant, did not include communities living in Europe, which is what you are, erroneously, trying to imply.

2. The Mandate was reworded to prevent that the European Jews from making a legal claim on Palestine that the British were trying to facilitate, as explained in the Memorandum.

As for the language about a Jewish homeland, it was not meant to be a territorial state on Palestinian land. Lord Curzon is clear that although the Powers at the Versailles conferences after WW I recognized a Jewish connection to Palestine and the Balfour Declaration, the Memorandum states “this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim .". The Memorandum also states “while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine,* this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home*–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification . . .”  Although that is what illegally happened. 

3. The "rights" would apply to the people living in Palestine at the time, nine tenths of whom were Christian and Muslim, not to a future horde of invading European Zionists intent on creating a separate state in direct contravention of the Covenant's intent.

In summary, the legal history does not bear out any of your assertions.   The League of Nations wanted the British Mandate of Palestine to serve the Palestinians in accordance with their status within a “Class A.” Mandate. It envisaged a Palestinian state not a Jewish State. 

To wit, Sir Herbert Samuel, the first governor of the British Mandate of Palestine, urged that the *“future government of Palestine”* be required to repay any loans raised during the Mandate for its development. This confirms that the Mandatory envisaged a future government of *Palestine*, which given the demographics, would be overwhelmingly Palestinian, not made up European hordes.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The League of Nations wanted the British Mandate of Palestine to serve the Palestinians in accordance with their status within a “Class A.” Mandate.


Enough, enough  with this bullish and garbaggio. It was not a Class A mandate, of course.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 16, 2015)

Challenger, et al,

This is a mixed bag.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.  Article 51 _[which actually did not applied since Israel  (as well as Jordan) was not yet a member of the UN]_ is the lawful defense against the Aggression by the Arab League using its multiple armed forces as a form of collaborative coercion aimed against the political independence, self-determination and territorial integrity of the newly formed State of Israel.

The comment that there were no resolutions condemning the action, is not entirely representative of the UN position.  The UN did say:  "Any warlike decision or action on the part of Transjordan will undoubtedly be the cause of the gravest censure by the Security Council and the entire United Nations as a possible threat to peace."   (PAL/162  29 April 1948)  

I think it is a gross misconception to say that the UN sided with the Arab Invasion.  The UN actually thought is was a threat to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 16, 2015)

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The League of Nations wanted the British Mandate of Palestine to serve the Palestinians in accordance with their status within a “Class A.” Mandate.
> ...



Garbaggio=Inconvenient fact to this bozo.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 16, 2015)

"
*MANDATES A.*

MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].

A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.

It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay.* The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger, et al,
> 
> This is a mixed bag.
> 
> ...


Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. Article 51​
Except that every account of the war (Except for the lies out of Israel.) say that the fighting was in Palestine. None of them say that Israel was entered or invaded.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure this is true.
> 
> ...


At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.​
It looks like there is a disagreement here.

A/RES/*3236* (XXIX)
22 November 1974

_Guided_ by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

_Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people* in Palestine, *including:

(_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. _Reaffirms also_ the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;​--------------------------------
*Egyptian Israeli Armistice agreement, 1949*

The parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure underArticle 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace *in Palestine,*​


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 So why did they enter Palestine in 1947 then ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 Who will give the holy land to the arab muslims then, as this would be a war crime, a crime against humanity and a breach of every Geneva convention.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Your link above


 until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

 Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine *territory* shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate




 So until the arab muslims either move out or show self determination in full the mandate is still in force


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...





Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 I have and nowhere does it say that Palestine existed as a nation. In fact the term Palestine was hardly used by the Ottomans. The arab muslims were a minority according to the Ottoman census that was carried out 3 times prior to 1917 showing that the Jews owned most of what is now Israel. Those are the facts as gathered from the Ottoman historical records and are as good as any you can find


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 According to international law the sovereign owners of Palestine are the Jews, so try disputing this with your islamonazi propaganda


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 Your cut and paste comes 25 years after this event and relates to the Mandate of Palestine and not any nation of palestine


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 16, 2015)

jillian said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > All Palestinians without any titles or deeds to their stolen land should not be allowed to remain in Israel.  Problem is no surrounding Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.
> ...




King Abdullah is a very wise man.  He marries the most gorgeous Palestinian & refuses to grant the rest of them a right of return.  And who knows Palestinians better than Jordan?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Five short points needed to be made here.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

1.  This regurgitation of the Armistice Agreement fragment makes it very plain:  The agreement was between Egypt and Israel; not Egypt and Palestine.  The language used in the Agreement is a concession to the fact that the members of the Arab League considered the territory subject to the former Mandate of Palestine to be "Palestine."  And that the Arab League, in 1949, consider the entirety of "Palestine" to be Arab territory.  And the Arab League considered any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression.  Thus, for the sake of peace, the term "Palestine" was used; but for the sake of legality, the Agreement was between Egypt and Israel.

2.  The Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement of signed, 24 February at Rhodes --- was negotiated agreed upon and signed before the State of Israel admitted to the UN [A/RES/273 (III)  11 May 1949].  The Charter did not apply to Israel during the 1948-49 War of Independence.

3.  It must be noted and completely understood that A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 is a non-binding Resolution, adopted a quarter century after the Armistice Agreements; and 14 years before the announced Independence of the State of Palestine.   Paragraph 1 of A/RES/3236, applied just as well to Israel as it does to the other Palestinian People.  The "right of self-determination" and the "right to independence and sovereignty" apply to ALL PEOPLE, and are not unique to the Arab Palestinians.

4.   Resolution 194 [A/RES/194 (III)  11 December 1948] the Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator, does mention in Paragraph 11 the "right of return," was not further defined until A/AC.25/W/61 9 April 1951, two years (+) from the outbreak of hostilities; then revised in the Current Version of the 1967 Protocol, which is limited by Article 1C(1 thru 6)(Page 15).  Of particular interest is the Paragraph 1C(3):   "He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality."  Interestingly enough, is the fact that the argument is made that the Palestinians in the West Bank had citizenship as Jordanians and then with the 1988 State of Palestine.  Similarly, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had the protection of Egypt and then citizenship under the 1988 State of Palestine.  Oddly enough, The Convention entered into force on 22 April 1954, and it has been subject to only one amendment in the form of a 1967 Protocol, which removed the geographic and temporal limits of the 1951 Convention; has little to say about "descendants."  Since General Assembly Resolutions are not binding, there is a huge question as to whether the obligation or enforcement of Resolution 194 is even possible.

5.  When Resolution A/RES/3236 was adopted and in Paragraph 2, cited the right of return, there was actually no international law that included the "right of refugees to return;" with the exception of the very questionable A/RES/194. That would not come until International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) two years later; it entered into force 23 March 1976, a decade after the Six-Day War.   AND THEN, it is still questionable.  The CCPR make the necessary exceptions to protect national security, and public order.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​
That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???



P F Tinmore said:


> [
> Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​
> That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II)  (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1).  It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory.  The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence.  The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition.  These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone.  The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues.  However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone.   On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.   On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan.  *Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River. *

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​
At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Where does that come from???
> 
> ...


The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition.​
Where does it say that Palestine was exempt?

Link?

Oh yeah, it was just more of Israel's say so.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Where does that come from???
> 
> ...


At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.​
Britain prevented that from happening. That is why they kept a military presence for a civilian function.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Where does that come from???
> 
> ...


The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support,​
Now* that *is funny. From Rothschild to little blue boxes to foreign "charity" to billions in military aid, Israel was created and exists on OPM.

Israel is the mooch capital of the world.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Where does it even mention Palestinian.   OH yeah.  That is just more Palestinian say so.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*
Where does it say Palestine, both east and west of the Jordan, is absolutely included?  Why do you suggest that it MUST BE the case?

Why would you suspect that "certain communities" would mean "all communities."  Where is it defined that "certain communities" includes the Palestinians west of the Jordan River?

You want it to be true.  That does not mean it is true.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Where does it even mention Palestinian.   OH yeah.  That is just more Palestinian say so.
> 
> ...


Where is it defined that "certain communities" includes the Palestinians west of the Jordan River?

Where does it say "except Palestine" anywhere?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


You show yourself, as usual, to be both willfully ignorant and profoundly dishonest. 

Israel is hardly as you ignorantly and dishonestly describe. In fact, Israel is a world economy. 

Israel Economy Facts & Stats

With your ignorance and dishonesty now addressed, discuss for us the "_Plight of the Pal'istanians_". Discuss for us the billions of welfare dollars that have been showered upon a group of welfare scammers who are incapable of cobbling together even the most rudimentary of social structures and conventions. 

Please do make your usual excuses for a collection of Islamic terrorist misfits who have contributed nothing to the world community other than welfare fraud and the promotion of hate and misery.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



the world economy, are you crazy. Its China, the EU and then the US. Israel is dependent on the US for aid.  If they are the "world economy" they have best pay us back. They sponge  off of all others. They hate the Evans but take their money, they bad mouth us but take our money. They are existent on OPM.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



YES!  Agreed.  Inalienable rights for Palestinians. A right of self determination.  And a right of national dependence.  Only, not in Israel.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2015)

Penelope said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Is there any chance you could re-write the above pretending that you're a thinking human?


----------



## theliq (Oct 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> I stand corrected --- and --- apologize.
> 
> ...


About Time you apologised


----------



## theliq (Oct 16, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > theliq,  et al,
> ...


Excellent Post Challenger...A1


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> "*MANDATES A.*
> MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].
> A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.
> It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay.* The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.*


Yeah, right!! hehe
“(2) The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States.’ The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”
Palestine royal report, july, 1937.
The mandate palestine was not a Class A mandate. Iraq was.
Enjoy


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 17, 2015)

theliq said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Bullish, as usual, of course.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> The parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure underArticle 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace *in Palestine,*


So, who was that shakh, emir, pasha, sultan, prime-minister, president of that "palestine"? Otherwise, the contention is relegated to agitprop-garbaggio can, of course.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


What do you think jew got Israel by themselves. It was gift from WWII coalition to Jew because jew help coalition out in wwii against Germany.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


New International law will replace the old one and I hope you will accept then instead falls propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Which they would have if the arab muslims had agreed to the partition of 1923 when Palestine was made into two separate entities that were both to achieve fully independent nation status. One being arab muslim and known as trans Jordan, the other being jewish and known as the Jewish NATIONal home.  So the only thing sopping this from happening was the arrogance and greed of the arabs who wanted everything. Britain failed at nothing as it was never in their power to usirp the Mandate and grant all of Jewish Palestine to the arabs. The UN should have stepped in and enforced the mandate as written which would have meant the arab muslims moving to Jordan or staying as full citizens of Israel


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 17, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






30 years out as the LoN granted the land to the Jews under the mandate in 1923, the same mandate that granted Joprdan to the arab mislims.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 17, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 No new International law can change sovereiengty without the sovereign nation agreeing to it.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure this is true.
> 
> ...



In 1939 Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, nothing was left of pre-1939 Poland but that did not mean that the Polish people reliquished their sovereignty over the Polish territory that existed before September 1939. Poles remained Poles and Palestinians still remained Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...







 How did Britain do this, did they gag every single arab in the west bank so they could not proclaim they were ready to take up the reins of power ?   You really need to take a long hard look at the requirements and how they are put into place, every step was the people showing their ability to form a government, run a country, raise taxes, show ability to enforce the taws and be fully independent. The arab muslims of Jewish Palestine have consistently shown that they are incapable of achieving any of these aims


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 By its omission in any of the treaties of course. that speaks as loud as the introduction of the Jewish NATIONal home being included in the trteaties


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A fine-looking specimen of Neanderthal...


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 17, 2015)

Penelope said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 The EU is not a world economy at all as it is a group of nations that are a mixture of thriving and failing economies. Look at the EU nations that have failed in the last 10 years and had to be bailed out, one has been bailed out 3 times and still it struggles to exist.

 The US is dependent on Israel for keeping many of its workers of the unemployment lines by laundering US money through aid and loans to get round international monopoly laws. Under the muslim POTUS the US has seen its credit rating drop to that of a third orld nation. The US also needs Israel to develop and prove new technology as it is fast losing the ability and resources to do it themselves. The American empire is reliant on China  to provide the income to float the companies as the riches are fast dissappearing


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 17, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 And arab muslim illegal immigrants from Syria, Egypt, Saudi, Yemen et al still remain illegal immigrants no matter how much the UN alter the rules in their favour. And the same rules also apply to the Jews so after two years they are full fledged indigenous Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 17, 2015)

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > "*MANDATES A.*
> ...









 Now this is an OUTSTANDING post as it destroys all the islamonazi propaganda in regards to the arab muslims having a nation prior to 1988.


----------



## fanger (Oct 17, 2015)

Ignored Member said




Nada, I like it


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


How did Britain do this, did they gag every single arab in the west bank so they could not proclaim they were ready to take up the reins of power ?​
Britain closed down Palestinian organizations by force, arresting, exiling, or killing their leaders.

So, yes, you could say that. That is why they kept a military presence for a civilian function.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 17, 2015)

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > "*MANDATES A.*
> ...



No, the Memorandum clearly states that the Palestine Mandate was to be a Class A mandate as required by the French and Italians in order for them to agree to approve the Palestine Mandate.  That is why it is prefaced with *Mandates A*. and includes Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.  Iraq did not exist at the time you moron.

In any case the Peel Commission Report you quote was disavowed by the later Woodhead Commission Report and neither have any legal standing being opinions and recommendations.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 17, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

Again, an improper analogy!




Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Polish were sovereign and independent  people prior to the invasion.  While it is true that _(from 1795 until 1918)_ no truly independent Polish state existed, prior to the end of WWI, from 1918 until the Nazi and Russian takeover in 1939, the Second Polish Republic, was a sovereign power over Poland.  Much different a history than the Arab Palestinians.

The Arab Palestinians have not been sovereign or independent for nearly a 1000 years; not until 1988.   Prior to the surrender _(1918 Armistice of Mudros)_ of the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers, what is today called the Arab Palestinian, was (in fact) Arab Ottomans. 

In 1914 what became known as the Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, there was to the East of the Jordan River, in the  Vilayet _(Province) _of Syria, the three Sanjaks _(administrative divisions/districts)_ of Damascus, Hauran and Maan which were either in whole or in part included.  Similarly, there was to the West of the Jordan River, in the Vilayet of Beirut, the three Sanjaks of Berirut, Acre, and Balqa.  Additionally, and because of its religious significance, was the administratively separate Sanjak of Jerusalem; which reported directly to the Vilayet Government of Syria.   Damascus was both the Beylerbeylik _(governor-generalship/provincial seat) _and a Sanjak locally.  BUT their was no administrative subdivision in the Ottoman Empire known as "Palestine."  Nor was it a legal entity.  It was a ancient name for a regional area that had no particular boundary. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 17, 2015)

What difference does it make Rocco?  Israel was an even more ancient name for an area that had no particular boundary.  Surely, the people actually living in this regional area had more right to it than European migrants/invaders.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Again, an improper analogy!
> 
> ...


The Arab Palestinians have not been sovereign or independent for nearly a 1000 years; not until 1988.​
Are you still pimping that Israeli propaganda?

*It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question​*(Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. *Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.*

*Partition and the Law - 1948*​


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 17, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

This might be true in a majority of cases.  But as you know, there are always exceptions to the rule.



montelatici said:


> What difference does it make Rocco?  Israel was an even more ancient name for an area that had no particular boundary.  Surely, the people actually living in this regional area had more right to it than European migrants/invaders.


*(COMMENT)*

In 1918, the Armistice of Mudros, the Ottoman Empire surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers.

XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.  

*Armistice of Mudros,* (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen,Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​
The original unconditional surrender was made to the Allied Powers, by the Ottoman Empire, before the Turkish Government was established (29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey).

At the San Remo Convention (26 April 1920), the Allied Supreme Council (Principal Allied Powers of World War I ) 

The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers"  and were not finalized until several years later. The conference's decisions were the basis of the never-implemented Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97). 

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.​Turkey rejected this treaty, after Kemal Ataturk revolted, overthrew the Sultan and  produced "facts on the ground" that nullified grants of territory to the Greeks and other concessions. The allies also quarreled over the mandates and their jurisdiction. The conference's decisions were finally confirmed, after considerable modification, by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.  ...

The San Remo Resolution is the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a "national home." Class "A" mandates were mandates that were presumed to eventually become self governing and independent.​
In 1920, the Allied Powers proceeded to accomplish their goals under this agreement; understanding that Turkey will accept the terms and any decision the Allied Powers made.

Attempts in 1923 to provide the tutelage for the Arab population was rejected by the Arab Representative.  Three attempts in total were made to bring the Arabs closer to self-governance --- and three times it was rejected.  The Arab leaders declined these offers on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.  The aspirations apparently being the establishment of another Arab State over the remained of the territory to which the mandate applied.



montelatici said:


> What difference does it make Rocco?



In 1948, the Jewish Population did not insist that they should have "X" amount of territory allotted to them simply because of historical ties.  The Jewish Immigrants, coming to the territory under the auspices of the Mandate --- exercised the self-determination --- following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly.   By contrast, “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration” in that they owned land.  They insisted that the UN and the Mandatory, to which the Ottoman/Turkish Government surrendered, had no authority to allocate the territory or to recognize self-determination of a formally invited and duly authorized immigrants following the UN adopted process.  The Jewish population, although they claim a historical connection to the land, and that the Allied Powers recognized as having a historical connection, did not entirely rely on that aspect of the bid for independence.  Whereas the Arab Palestinian did everything in its power to alienate the UN and the Allied Powers, and avoid cooperation in the process at every turn.  In the end, the conditions today generally reflect that outcome and temperament.   As we all know, failure to comply with the general rules and practices will normally meet with negative results.

In hindsight, how much better-off would the Palestinian be today if they had mimicked the Jewish Agency and followed the parallel of a Arab Agency?  How much better-off would the Arab Palestinian be today if they had not encouraged or induced an Arab League Assault and Invasion into the territory to which the Mandate applied in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Manonthestreet (Oct 17, 2015)

Flag of Palestine 1939


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You must be imagining things.



P F Tinmore said:


> Are you still pimping that Israeli propaganda?
> 
> *It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question*
> (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).
> ...


(COMMENT)

I have searched and searched Article 22 and cannot find that verbiage anywhere in the text.  


Where does it say that in 1919, it was "universally and legally accepted"  ---  anything?
Where does it say that "the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent" --- of anything?
Where does it say the "Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state?*"*
In fact I can't find, anywhere in the entire covenant, the words/phrases:

"universally and legally accepted"
"Palestine"
"The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine."
In fact, the Covenant doesn't "invest" anything to any entity for any reason.  What it said was:  "The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. THREE times the Arab Community was asked to join the process;  --- and THREE times the Arab population of Palestine rejected being brought into cooperation with the government.

If there was ever strong evidence that the Arab Population did not want to cooperate in the Article 22 process, it was their rejection to contribute to the formation of a cooperative government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

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

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.​

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You must be imagining things.
> 
> ...


Nonsense. What is the meaning of "such peoples?"


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It could apply to any of the populations or cultures with which the Ottoman Empire was relieved.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nonsense. What is the meaning of "such peoples?"


*(COMMENT)*

Remember, in terms of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the issues of Palestine were relatively small.  But there were a lot of different "peoples" that could be included in the language, "such peoples."  Some of which _(but not all inclusive)_ are here, as part of the Break-up.


KURDISTAN
SMYRNA
GREECE
ARMENIA
SYRIA, 
MESOPOTAMIA, 
PALESTINE.
HEDJAZ
EGYPT
SOUDAN
MOROCCO, 
TUNIS
LIBYA, 
AEGEAN ISLANDS
*The phrase "such peoples" might include other territories that were affected by the break-up.  An example would be when Bulgaria simultaneously annexed the autonomous Ottoman Province of Eastern Rumelia (1908).  And when Italy seized the Ottoman provinces of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica.  Italy also gained Greek-speaking Dodecanese archipelago, including the Isle of Rhodes.
*
The Arab Palestinians were not the only peoples to be absorbed by the Allied Powers or the Associate Powers.  They were not the only people to have lost their autonomy and independence.  
*
Most Respectfully,
R*


----------



## theliq (Oct 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Stupid Bastard


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 17, 2015)

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Now now Steve, don't be so hard on yourself.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This might be true in a majority of cases.  But as you know, there are always exceptions to the rule.
> 
> ...



It was an invasion of Palestine.  It would as if the millions arriving in Europe now were to insist on a state of their own on Europe.  If the indigenous people had not resisted, there would be no non-Jews living anywhere in Palestine.  The Zionist plan, was to be implemented stealthily and the resistance of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims, with its inherent publicity and UN attention,  made it impossible for the Jews to implement their plan of removing all the non-Jews from Palestine.  Had the Christians and Muslims behaved like sheep they would have been eliminated one way or another.  The Jews, left to their own devices, are an evil people, like Muslims, in short, they are not Christians and do not have our Christian values, that is what you fail to understand Rocco.

"... it is not possible _to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river_. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.....Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country....."

"Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



Did you respond to my request to supply your historical knowledge base?


----------



## montelatici (Oct 17, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



I provide sources, via links.  Read them.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


So you are a Jew Hating piece of scum.
But I already knew that.

You see people, these Jew Haters LOVE the weak non-Jewish Jew.
And Jew Haters even hate Jews who convert and then rise to the top of society and start running the nation in which they are currently residing.
Most of the Jews in the US who are at the top of the political game are non-Jewish Jews who are still blamed for everything wrong in the world.
Monte and company won't be happy until all Jews, religious and not, are exterminated.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 17, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



What is a "non-Jewish Jew"?  Sounds like an oxymoron. 

I have nothing against Jews.  I do hate oppressive regimes that oppress others because of their race, religion or any other characteristic.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



90% of today's Jews are not observant...they behave in a non-Jewish manner.
They are NOT Kosher, do NOT Observe Shabbos and do not pray 3x/daily.
They DO what non-Jews are EXPECTED to do...They are EXTREMELY charitable and educated.
They are HATED by non-Jews just as much as Observant Jews.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 17, 2015)

Jews are not hated at all in America or Europe.  Zionists are hated by many.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Jews are not hated at all in America or Europe.  Zionists are hated by many.


Jews are not hated in Europe?
White Supremists in the US don't blame the Jews in Congress and the President's Cabinet for all the ills in the world?
Are you on crack?


----------



## montelatici (Oct 17, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Jews are not hated at all in America or Europe.  Zionists are hated by many.
> ...



I don't see Jewish kids being killed by police in the U.S.  The police seem to kill blacks, not Jews. The old victim thing doesn't work anymore.  Jews are not hated in Europe or the U.S. 

Zionists are hated in Europe, not Jews.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



France, Neo-Nazi groups in Great Britain, Germany actually having to outlaw Free Speech in regards to Jew Hatred.
Read much outside of I Hate Israel sites?


----------



## montelatici (Oct 17, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Of course people hate Israel, it is a malevolent, child killing oppressive regime.  But, not all Jews are Israelis and not all Israelis are malevolent child killers.  Just most of them.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



People hate Jews; don't try to ignore what's going on it Europe, especially France.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 17, 2015)

People hate Zionists.  No one hates Jews.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> People hate Zionists.  No one hates Jews.



French Jews are Zionists?  REALLY?
British Jews are Zionists?   REALLY?
You're so full of crap.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Which Palestinian organisations were they then. How about a link from an unbiased and non partisan source ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Then you should be able to produce the section of the mandate of palestne that says this, because I have a hard copy and cant find it anywhere.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> People hate Zionists.  No one hates Jews.







 WRONG as people like you use Zionist a a RACIST TERM for all the Jews


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> What difference does it make Rocco?  Israel was an even more ancient name for an area that had no particular boundary.  Surely, the people actually living in this regional area had more right to it than European migrants/invaders.







 NOPE WRONG AGAIN as the laws in 1923 were different to the laws in 2003


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger,  et al,
> ...







Then produce the section that says this, and it must name Palestine as the nation and class A mandate



 Your islamonazi sources prove nothing being biased and partisan with its reports being based on propaganda and LIES


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 Back pedalling and ducking now you have been found to have LIED about what the covenant actually says, so you deflect by asking one of your inane questions.     It means what it says in respect of the era it was written in, and this was the arab muslims under the Mufti having sided with the Ottomans get nothing.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...







 Yes we know you are


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...







 Yes by arab muslims who had never lived there, don't forget that there was another white paper by Churchill that said the arabs migrated illegally in their tens of thousands to Jewish Palestine.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You can not change the facts and figure and history. Instead, Please educate to jew that they are not especial race and masaya is not coming. And also teach them how to live with neighbors.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 A convert, or one that has given up their religion


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 You mean like the Palestinians and the Catholics ?


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Well it was happen after world wwii.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Jews are not hated at all in America or Europe.  Zionists are hated by many.







 Then this must mean that all the Jews in Europe are Zionists because they are all being attacked by Catholics and muslims


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 When was the last time you where in Europe, and did you see all the Synagogues that were defaced with racist slogans.

 here are some picture to prove you are a LIAR


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Only islamonazis and Catyholics hate the Jews as they both have the same root religion and have tried to wipe out the Jews since the 3C


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 18, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 The LoN granted the land to the Jews as their NATIONal home in 1923, that is a historical fact that you illiterate muslims need to get into your brains. Your 13th imam is not coming and you wont force the world to become muslim either. You are dying on your feet in the west as more and more people want you out and returned to the hell holes you came from. Expect riots in the near future as more and more people see you islamonazi's for what you are


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The establishment of State of Israel as a Jewish National Home --- marks the beginning of an epoch in the protection and preservation of the people and heritage, the international culture, and ethno-religious character of the Jewish people from around the globe; unified by a some commonalities in their core beliefs.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.


*(COMMENT)*

The answer to this question (or debate) is much like query about whether it is more accurate to "half FULL" or "half EMPTY."

PALESTINE ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT  (July 1937)(AKA:  Peel Report)

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that *the British Government have never accepted the Arab case*. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows : - .

” That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915 is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​The objective was to establish a Jewish National Home --- and to do that you need people.  And people requires immigration.  That is why the immigration was facilitated.  Of course, the more you immigrate the more resources are required, to include land.

If is rather foolish to try and isolate --- and address --- issues like this --- unless you are willing to to examine all the other circumstances that impact it and that it in turn impacts.  During the period between 1920 and 1945, the immigration of Arabs and Jews was (roughy) parallel in overall numbers:  Arab 401,149 and Jews 367,845. (See the Chart.)

Both the Arabs and the Jews were govern by the same basic criteria in attaining citizenship or immigration authority.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 18, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The establishment of State of Israel as a Jewish National Home --- marks the beginning of an epoch in the protection and preservation of the people and heritage, the international culture, and ethno-religious character of the Jewish people from around the globe; unified by a some commonalities in their core beliefs.
> 
> ...


That doesn't refute my post at all.

BTW, you have the wrong information on that immigration. Here is the chart.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, I don't think you engage the little gray cells.



P F Tinmore said:


> That doesn't refute my post at all.
> 
> BTW, you have the wrong information on that immigration. Here is the chart.


*(COMMENT)*

BTW, if you look at my post and your chart, the numbers are the same.

Your insinuation was that the issue was "immigration and Palestinian citizenship."

And, I wasn't really trying to refute your post, but to point out that the comparison of immigrants were very similar, from year to year.  And if the issue was about immigration, then, it an issue of very little consequence.  The Arab numbers for that period are actually slightly more that the Jewish numbers.  THUS, the balance of immigration was a growth in Arabs not Jews.  Virtually nothing to complain about.

And, since the rules for citizenship were exactly the same for Arab and Jewish immigrants, then that is a wash as well.   Virtually all the Arab became Palestinians.   For although the Citizenship Order (1925) gave the right to opt for Turkish or other nationalities (as appropriate) within two years.   The number of Arabs who availed themselves of this option was negligible. 

The virtual victim stance was so one-sided on the issues of Arab importance, as to be much to do about nothing.

The real issues had to do with the power, influence and money that the old Arab families would be losing under a government with a Jewish flavor to it.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 18, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, I don't think you engage the little gray cells.
> 
> ...


You need to take another look at that chart and rewrite your response.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore,

I see, I had the column reversed.



P F Tinmore said:


> You need to take another look at that chart and rewrite your response.


(COMMENT)

Thanks

v/r/R


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore,

I apologies.  I see, I had the column reversed.  I was using two different charts.  I apologize.



P F Tinmore said:


> You need to take another look at that chart and rewrite your response.


(COMMENT)

Thanks

I should have used the Demographic chart.  I stand corrected.  I made a mistake.




It would have been 630K to 1.181M  End state population. 

I've been making stupid mistakes all the last week.

v/r/
R


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 Is that why the area was partitioned into an arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. And why the LoN distinctly stated that they would bring about the Jewish NATIONal home.   Your wishful thinking is not fact it is fantasy, and the treaties wording tells you that this is the case.

I am more literate that all you islamonazi morons put together, I can look for and read the authors explanations of what they meant by their words.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 So you are using monte's link that was published by committee that were anti Jew at the time. He tried to say that the numbers of illegal immigrants were known because so many were caught by the British.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


That is from Rocco's link.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Again, an improper analogy!
> 
> ...



The analogy was quite correct and thank you for pointing out the fact that Poland had been partitioned several times and reduced to mere provinces (vilayets, sanjaks, etc) and despite the various attempts of all three empires to "assimilate" Poles as Russians Austrians or Prussians, the people maintained their culture and thirst for independance (self determination), evidenced by several popular uprisings or "intifadas".


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 19, 2015)

Challenger,  et al

Just like the various Arab states that went through a period called the "Arab Spring;" so it was in Europe with several countries.



Challenger said:


> The analogy was quite correct and thank you for pointing out the fact that Poland had been partitioned several times and reduced to mere provinces (vilayets, sanjaks, etc) and despite the various attempts of all three empires to "assimilate" Poles as Russians Austrians or Prussians, the people maintained their culture and thirst for independance (self determination), evidenced by several popular uprisings or "intifadas".


*(COMMENT)*

It was not, necessarily as you say a "thirst for independence (self determination)," although that is certainly a major component in some cases.  There was not just one reason for the dissolution of the Russian Empire,  the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the role that nationalism of Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal) played in the decline of the Ottoman Empire, --- and the forced abdication of the Kaiser which reduced the German Empire.   It was fairly remarkable that in the wake of WWI it became possible for Germany to rise with Weimar Republic, Ottoman with the Turkish Republic --- with the return of most autonomy to most of the former satellite states and regions, and Russia with the Bolsheviks reclaiming most of the ex-Tsarist Empire and founding the Soviet Union.  The Austro-Hungarian Empire, which included most of central Europe, exploded in to present day Austria and Hungary as well as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia and parts of present Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro. 

THE END of WWI brought with it the introduction of the great experiment in the Mandate System.

The _Class C mandates_, former German possessions in South West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.

The Class B mandates were all in Africa:

•  The Belgium holdings in Ruanda-Urundi (German East Africa );
•  The British holdings in Tanganyika (a Partition of British East Africa);
•  The British Resident Supervision of Cameroons (partition from Kamerun -- German West African Colony);
•  The holding under the French Commissioner in Cameroun (partition from Kamerun -- German West African Colony);
•  The British and French holdings in Togo and Ghana (formerly German Protectorate in West Africa);​The Class A mandates were all territories below the southern frontier of Turkey:

•  Palestine (which would come to include Transjordan),
•  Syria (which would come to include Lebanon), and
•  Mesopotamia.​
*(THE POINT)*

While the Ottoman Empire was not the only Empire to have portions of it brought under Mandate, Poland was different in that it was immediately recognized as a nation that could stand on its own.  The Mandate over Palestine was not the only territory to be partitioned; it was just the only country to throw a temper tantrum for more than half a century and still unable to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 19, 2015)

Rehmani,  et al,

This is something I don't understand.



Rehmani said:


> Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.


*(COMMENT)*

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

An "invasion."
It was "illegal."
I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Oct 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al
> 
> Just like the various Arab states that went through a period called the "Arab Spring;" so it was in Europe with several countries.
> 
> ...



Thank you, I'm well aware of the history of post WW1Europe and the newly constituted Poland was not immediately recognised or accepted by the other powers, not least of which the Soviet Union (Russo-Polish war 1919-1921 ring any bells?)

Palestine was the only country colonised by a European politico-religious cult against the soveriegn will of the majority of the people of Palestine, is it any wonder they threw a "temper tantrum" as you so patronisingly put it? Syria also threw a "temper tantrum" as did Iraq when a foreign or native minority group was imposed on their majority population as rulers.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> This is something I don't understand.
> 
> ...



Seems obvious to me. 

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> This is something I don't understand.
> 
> ...



1.  The definition of invasion:

"*Definition:* An unarmed military campaign across national boundaries, with a comparatively long-range objective or duration, in restraint of flagrant injustice, oppression, invasion, or genocide."

2. An invasion of people, from a region to another region, who intend to remove the existing inhabitants of the other region through ethnic cleansing and/or genocide is a crime, hence illegal.  Note: The Zionist and subsequently "Transfer Committee" headed by Yosef Weitz were clear on the goal of ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Note: the link above does work.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 19, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



"Illegal invasion by Jews"?  Well lets see now.  Which came first, Solomon's Temple, or the Al Aqsa Mosque?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 19, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 What illegal invasion was that then as the Jews were invited by the legal sovereign land owners to migrate and close settle the land. It is you that supports the illegal arab muslim invasions from the 1870's to the present day


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 19, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger,  et al
> ...







 When did Palestine become a country then, for it to be colonised by a European politico-religious cult. What sovereign people lived in this mythical nation that never existed, seeing as it passed from Ottoman sovereignty to LoN sovereignty when it was partitioned into separate nations. The arab muslims were allocated 78% of the land as their national home and still wanted more.

 When did Syria and Iraq throw these alleged temper tantrums then, a link would be nice so we can pick its bones clean and prove you wrong


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 19, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani,  et al,
> ...







 Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

 And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani,  et al,
> ...







 Did you read your link Abdul, the part that says

 The migration of the arabs of the land of Israel was not caused by persecution, violence, expulsion....(it was) a tactic of war on the part of the arabs.


 So once again you shoot yourself in the foot and bring evidence that proves you wrong


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 19, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer.  I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term.  BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections.  A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian?   Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros:  Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres:  Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty).  THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory.  Simply put --- it was not their "domain."  By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies). 

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner. ​THUS:  The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the  Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration. 

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council, 
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.​
THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".



Challenger said:


> Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.


*(COMMENT)*

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic.  Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.  But that is not always true --- no have it been true.  It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.  

My Thumbnail Approach:  (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty 

The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote.   Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty 

This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty 

It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory;  there is no question of this.  But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland.  Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature.  The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force.  Some would say, that is illegal.  None the less, it is a reality.  And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability.  But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Well, we are a little bit closer.  I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.
> 
> ...


I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​
It seems that was the case.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), *the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples *was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. *It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people * and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

It is universally and legally accepted that *sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants* of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Partition and the Law - 1948​
Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger,  et al,
> ...







 Correct and this meant that the Jews were the soveriegns of the Jewish section of Palestine. So why do you oppose this simple action yet defend and support the arab muslims taking land that was not theirs ?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers.  The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that.  In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone.  And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments.  The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing.  But the scope and nature is undefined.  Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned.   The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates.  They understood their intent and they exercised that intent.  The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:
We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​
And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the *interpretation* put upon it at the time, *that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants*. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’​21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.​What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different.  REMEMBER:  The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R
​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.
> 
> ...


Britain was an old colonial power. They never recognized the rights of natives anywhere.

So it is no surprise that they blew off the rights of the Palestinians.

Violating people's rights do not negate those rights.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



So are you saying the non native Muslim Palestinians have the rights to attack & kill the indigenous Jewiish Palestinians & claim it is their land/


----------



## montelatici (Oct 19, 2015)

The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.



Oh now I get it.  You see you Zionists, the Al Aqsa Mosque & Church of the Nativity came before Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 20, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



No the indigenous Palestinian population (Muslim, Druze, Christian and Jewish), has the right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 20, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian?



If we're quibbling about terms here, let's clarify that indigenous Palestinians are more "Arabised" than "Arab". The people of Palestine adopted Arabic culture in the centuries following the Muslim conquest. Ethnic Arabs never surplanted the local population; ethnic Arab migration on any substantial scale took place only in post conquest Mesopotamia, elswhere there is no evidence of migration on any significant scale. To use the term "Arab Palestinian" as an ethnic/racial term is therefore inaccurate.

The use of the word "domain" in the definition I found is serendipetous; as it accurately encapsulates who had the real power in the area. From the 13th until the 20th century, at least, Palestine was effectively "ruled" by several notable families/clans. Ottoman Beys and their entourages may have been the official rulers and governors, but they could get nothing done without the consent and cooperation of these Palestinian clans; Palestine was in fact their domain.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 20, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.
> ...



Well at least those two structures are tangible. There is absolutely no archaological evidence for the existence of Solomon's temple, none, nada, zip.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...








 Go back to 1920 and detail just what rights a defeated enemy had at the end of a war. Once again you attempt to use human and civil rights of today in 1920 because there was no actual rights in those days. The only rights they had was to do as they were told or face the full force of the authorities.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.








 And yet they had been evicted numerous times over the centuries. The arab muslims only held the land for 22 years until they were evicted/ethnically cleansed by the Crusaders in 1099, never to return as sovereigns.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 When did this right come into force then, and it better be before 1917 when the land was war booty ?


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 20, 2015)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Solomon's Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read paragraph 3.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 So we cant see the Temple mount then with its ancient carvings from the Solomon era




Archaeological Evidence for Solomon's Temple!

A second stone inscription revealed within the last three months provides remarkable evidence for the reliability of the biblical texts.

Only a decade ago, skeptics were complaining that there was no archaeological evidence for the Judah Kings of the House of David (1008-586 BC) and the Jerusalem Temple of King David's son Jedidiah (better known as King Solomon). However, in 1993, a tablet was found with an inscription by King Hazael of Aram-Damascus in about 825 B.C., which indicated that his father, Hadad II, was victorious in battle against the "foot soldiers, charioteers and horsemen of the King of the House of David" (against Jehosaphat, c. 860 B.C.).

A second stone tablet, the "Moabite Stone," revealed in 1995, contains 36 lines of Phoenician script that recounts the rebellion of King Mesha of Moab against King Jehoram of Israel and King Jehosaphat of Judah (recorded in 2 Kings 3:5-27).1

The newly revealed sandstone tablet has a 15 line inscription in ancient Hebrew that is similar to the writings found in 2 Kings 12:1-6, 11-17.2 In the inscription, King Joash tells priests to take "holy money ... to buy quarry stones and timber and copper and labor to carry out the duty with faith."




King Solomon's Wall Found—Proof of Bible Tale?



Archaeologists Find Artifacts From Time Of Biblical King David And Solomon's Temple



 So it all depends on which scientists you believe as to whether or not Solomon existed and built a temple.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Similarly why don't you understand too that roman kicked out jew from holly land and Arab muslim welcome back to jew during Ottoman Empire instead jew respect arab muslim they pushed them into camps and invade their land and home now you tell me that do you trust cheater who cheat you like jew are cheating to Arab msulim who accommodate jew in holy land.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Please agree with Montelatici and spread the peace.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Talk to your friend Ruddy as he already accepted that jews were invited by the muslim 500 years ago. And I will say muslim made wrong decision and roman were right about the jew, they can not be trusted.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 20, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Stop nonsense just think how establish peace in holy land.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 20, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani,  et al,
> ...


Please Montelatici post he explain well.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 20, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> This is something I don't understand.
> 
> ...


Please see Montelatici post or may be you already have that I think he explain well.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 20, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani,  et al,
> ...



Monte's posts are wonderful.  So little left for us to laugh at these days while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 20, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

Yes, I've heard this before.  You don't express the entire context.



Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Self-defense is a right, it does not mean you can achieve it.  It does not mean that some authority is going to hand it to you on a sliver platter.  And, it does not mean that their are not limitations to its application.  The limits are wide and varied, but do include:

Chapter I --- UN Charter
Article 2(4)
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ​
Chapter VII --- UN Charter
Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.​
A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 
	

DoP International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (its parent derivative authority) clearly makes it plain that guiding principle concepts include:
Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, is not law.  It is a non-binding resolution;  it is not universally understood, customary or statutory law.   I know that there are several resolutions out there, to include A/RES/2649
30 November 1970, A/RES/33/24  29 November 1978, and A/RES/3246 (XXIX)  29 November 1974, all of which contain the same or similar language. 

Phrases like "by any means" and "all means necessary" have a consequence involved.  The use of force against an Occupying Power is punishable by law (IHL Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention).  If the protected persons of the Palestine forge and attack against the Israeli, the are subject to prosecution and imprisonment.  

*(BOTTOM LINE)*

Attacking Israel will have consequences.  Arab Palestinians who conduct such activities solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or in cases where the Hostile Arab Palestinian is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, are NOT performing condoned activities under the DoP and thus, subject to the legal consequences as any criminal.  Hostile activities that  appear to be intended:   (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;  are subject to such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law.

The Palestinian has no special dispensation to employ jihadist tactics or engage in an armed struggle against the Israeli government.

CONSEQUENCES!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Oct 20, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


 The only evidence so far found has been proved to have been fabricated fakes in 2014. Even if you can't dig on the site itself, archeologists have found nothing to corroborate what the Jewish holy book asserts. Nice try though.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 20, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



This is a common misconception, the Romans destroyed Herod's temple and forbade the Jerusalem Cult (Temple Judaism) to practice there. The Jewish religion was untouched elsewhere in Palestine and throughout the Roman Empire (unless they provoked the Romans in some way). The Jewish inhabitants of Palestine gradually left to join other Jewish communities in Mesopotamia, North Africa or Europe or stayed and converted to Islam.

You are quite correct that those who chose to remain or chose to return later were generally welcomed by the Muslim communities in the Ottoman Empire, most of them however, chose to settle in the Balkans or Anatolia, very few chose to settle in Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Get it right the romans took all the young and fit as slaves back to Rome, leaving those they did not want in Israel. The arab muslims started the genocide when mo'mad the unholy prophet wiped them all out at Medina, a Jewish city . After the fall of the Roman empire the Jews made their way back to Israel were they were met by hordes of arab muslims acting on the commands in the koran and hadiths and wiping out the Jews and Christians. In 1099 the arab muslims were evicted from the lands of Palestine never to return. The Ottomans conquered the land in the 16C  and they partly allowed Jews to return only to later turn on them and do their favourite massacre tactics.

 I give you kithman and taqiya that shows the muslims are cheaters and fraudsters and not to be trusted. You forget that as of 1923 the land was Jewish under international law, and because the arab muslims of Palestine sided with the Ottomans they lost the right to any land.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Did you read what I found in his link that I will spread willingly, that the Jews did not force the arab muslims out but that they left willingly


*The migration of the arabs of the land of Israel was not caused by persecution, violence, expulsion....(it was) a tactic of war on the part of the arabs.*


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...







 I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
 So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

 I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






I accept the Ottomans accepted the Jews, and then turned on them. I will say the world made the wrong decision when it accepted muslims into its heart, now we are paying the price and we can no longer afford it.  I can show that it is the muslims who can not be trusted, and they even have a term for their dishonesty... KITHMAN AND TAQIYA


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 The only way to achieve peace is to eradicate extremist islam, from IS to the stone throwing children of the west bank. Wipe them all out and the world will be peaceful


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...






 yes he explains the invasion of Israel and Europe by blood crazed muslims very well indeed. I wonder if he will explain the end times for them just as well ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 20, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani,  et al,
> ...







 Ho is a LYING POS islamonazi coward, just like you are and will not accept that islam teaches rape, theft, murder and violence.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands.  Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 20, 2015)

MJB and his excitement at the thought of the massacre Christians and Muslims.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB and his excitement at the thought of the massacre Christians and Muslims.




HUH???  Please explain.  'Atta boy!  I love Christians & I said let us hope the Pali's leave Israel some better option than Muslim Arab treatment.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB and his excitement at the thought of the massacre Christians and Muslims.






 The only massacres of Christians taking place is that committed by muslims


----------



## Challenger (Oct 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've heard this before.  You don't express the entire context.
> 
> ...


It will come as no surprise for you to learn that I disagree with your assertion and interpretation, however I have no intention of derailing and diverting the thread towards yet another interminable discussion on interpretations of international law.

Out of curiousity, however, care to define what you mean by "jihadist tactics"?


----------



## Challenger (Oct 21, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...





MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...



The only people who ever massacred Palesinians were Zionist Israel and it's allies and proxies.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Only in your fantasy world of planet Phoney. There are less than 600 Muslims, mainly from Pakistan where you live, an area that's 99% WASP, which probably explains why you are a card carrying fascist. I doubt you've ever seen a Muslim close up, unless it's the person behind the counter at your corner shop when you buy your beer and ciggies.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 21, 2015)

I wonder if anyone else can see the irony in Phoney's rant. "Europe will rise up against the Muslim invasion and send them back to their own countries, yada, yada, yada" So it's fine for "Europe" to do that to Muslim refugees, that Europe helped engineer, but not for Palestinians to rise up against the European Jewish Zionists who invaded Palestine in order to colonise it. Your hypocracy is showing Phoney...


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 21, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

No, I suppose not.  We often disagree.



Challenger said:


> It will come as no surprise for you to learn that I disagree with your assertion and interpretation, however I have no intention of derailing and diverting the thread towards yet another interminable discussion on interpretations of international law.
> 
> Out of curiousity, however, care to define what you mean by "jihadist tactics"?


*(COMMENT)*

As to derailing and diverting the thread, I was directly responding to your Post #410 concerning the Palestinian "right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them."

Actually, you are not disagreeing with me at all, in the Proper Context.  You are disagreeing with the Mandatory who expressed the opinion and their understanding in 1939.  We often try to apply 21st Century interpretations on pre-WWII decisions; which leads to an incorrect understanding of the actions taken.  In this case, you are (and of course you are free to do this) ignoring the 1939 intentions and misinterpreting the actions.


The idea was, and this was the *interpretation* put upon it at the time, *that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants*. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’​
This was the interpretation expressed by Right Honorable Sir Earl Peel (Chairman) and the Palestine Royal Commission (AKA Peel Commission Report).  

Finally, the Jihadist Tactics, especially that with regard to HAMAS, are a bit complex.  _(I recommend you read the Naval Postgraduate School,Center for Contemporary Conflict Report titled __Hamas: A Further Exploration of Jihadist Tactics__ as a start.)  _Understanding that HAMAS, at the organizational level, "does not conceal its intentions or methodology for exercising control over the Palestinian population."  _(This is very important, the intention is to _*control the Palestinian people*_.)  _Jihadist tactics evolve with time relative to the goals and objectives.

In the beginning, Hamas (1988 thru early 1990's) slowly creates a society that is ripe to adopt the suicide tactics of that similar to Hezbollah (Lebanon).  
Hamas begins the early process of galvanizing a segment of the Palestinian people to never accept peace, and only recognize PLO negotiations and settlements as temporary. 
Hamas leaders study Arab modern history, carefully selecting dates to energize resistance and acts of violence in Gaza.
Isolating and attacking "soft targets."
Launching attacks from large stand-off areas and within "densely populated areas."
HAMAS, as anti-Israeli Jihadist, fired thousands of Qassam rockets from Gaza into southern Israeli cities and villages, vowing to turn them into "ghost town." HAMAS activities embedded their infrastructure inside schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings – thereby taking cover behind “human shields.”  

*Jihadists change tactics to target Egypt Achilles heel: analysts*


 By Tony Gamal-Gabriel June 10, 2015
​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> No, I suppose not.  We often disagree.
> 
> ...


So what does all this have to do with the Palestinian's right to defend themselves?


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


Phoney  is hypocrite, sound like he confused too.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Zionist are actually jews and jews are very good under cove or use other name instead.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 21, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


But jew already have option and always destroy their option for example they destroy their first option when they were living in Pharaoh kingdome  and then they destroy their second option when they were living in Roman kingdom, on and on and now they are living happily around the world with out any problem especially in USA but choose Land Of Arab instead.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Challenger thanks and please tell to roudy phoney and others as well about the facts that it was msulim who accommodate jews in holy land  and now I will say those muslim were wrong and roman were right. And one more thing when Jew kicked out  by the Roman they left for Persia Empire and current Iran.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 21, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


This world base on logic and Monte's making sense to me, it doesn't matter who Monte's is.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Well then, damn those Zionists for giving the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians Black September.  Don't you agree?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I was answering a few different issues in one posting.

•  His (Challenger's) disagreement with my assertion.
•  Derailing and diverting the thread.
•  His (Challenger's) discussion on interpretations of international law.​
Then, he (Challenger) included in his response the question: what you mean by "jihadist tactics?"



P F Tinmore said:


> So what does all this have to do with the Palestinian's right to defend themselves?


*(COMMENT)*

So, actually I did not directly addressed these questions.  Not a question on the right to self-defense.

On the issue of the right to self-defense, one party cannot use their (supposed) right to "any and all means" and expect it to negate or override an actual "right to self-defense;"  as outlined in Posting #426.

The Palestinians cannot use the suggested "use of any and all means" of non-binding Resolutions (not law) to override the Israeli rights under International Humanitarian Law of Article 68, The Geneva Convention IV;  and the right under Article 51 of the Charter; OR as a means of circumventing the concepts behind the Declaration on Principles of International Law.

The Palestinians have never

•  Demonstrated their willingness or determined to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.
•  Not once taken the public position _(documented within the individual Organizational Charters of the more than a dozen so-called freedom fighters organizations)_ to renounce the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.
•  Demonstrated a willingness the maintain regional or international peace and security.​
It should be noted, that since the beginning, not one position paper, covenant, or charter, used by Palestinian organizations has ever placed peace and security as objectives to achieve --- with the exception of the 1993 *Israel-PLO Recognition:  Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat;*  to include:




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger,  et al,
> ...








 Read the koran and hadiths that detail what jihad means


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


 




 When and where did these acts take place then ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I was answering a few different issues in one posting.
> 
> ...





RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I was answering a few different issues in one posting.
> 
> ...


• Demonstrated their willingness or determined to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.​
Israel is not a neighbor. It is an occupation.

Your post is based on false premise.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 Well you would be wrong again, and just how do you know where I live if you haven't stalked me.

 In 1990 I watched 5,000 adult muslim men walk the main street of the town I lived in in protest of the Gulf war. Every single one from that same town. I worked with and was friends with arabs from Yemen, UAE, Syria and iran. I worked with Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and afghanis as well.    I don't drink and I don't smoke so I have no need to go into the corner shop for anything.

get your facts right before trying to tell the board where I live and what I do as you are just showing that you are a TROLL and a COWARDLY BULLY


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> I wonder if anyone else can see the irony in Phoney's rant. "Europe will rise up against the Muslim invasion and send them back to their own countries, yada, yada, yada" So it's fine for "Europe" to do that to Muslim refugees, that Europe helped engineer, but not for Palestinians to rise up against the European Jewish Zionists who invaded Palestine in order to colonise it. Your hypocracy is showing Phoney...






 They are not refugees as many don't come from war torn Syria at all, this was easily shown when border guards addressed them in Syrian dialect and they could not answer. Now the Eastern European nations are erecting border fences and turning back the invasion of islamonazi terrorists. I see the effects of your mismanagement every day when the local A&E is crammed with migrants wanting treatment for everything from a splinter to ebola. Just where is the money coming from to house, feed, clothe, educate and train these unwanted hordes that rape children and behead those that speak out against them.  You forget that in 1917 the arab muslim Palestinians were defeated Ottoman soldiers and had no rights at all. that the LoN who actually owned the land invited the Jews to migrate and settle in Palestine, so they did not invade and very few came from Europe. yes they colonised it with those willing to make it a flower in the desert again and not those who wanted another islamonazi shit hole run by extremist muslims to feather their own nests.

 YOU ARE THE HYPOCRITE WHO DEFENDS ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM SO THAT YOUR MASTERS CAN GAIN COONTROL ONCE MORE AND THROW ANOTHER GENERATION OF 12 YEAR OLD SCHOOLGIRLS TO THE MUSLIMS.  BY THE WAY WERE WILL ALL THE MONEY COME FROM TO HOUSE THE MIGRANTS WHEN THE RICH AND SELF SUFFICIENT MOVE OUT OF THE UK ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger,  et al,
> ...







 Defend themselves not fire illegal rockets at Israeli children. Doing that is instigating violence and means that then Israel is defending against that violence. If 2000 Palestinians get killed in the process the blame lies with the Palestinians for instigating the violence in the first place.

 Do you understand yet that you defend against attacks you don't defend by instigating attacks.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



It's just unfortunate that your blind, zionut brain cannot see the truth...

Do you understand that 'Freedom fighters' will always fight for their freedom!


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...







 Wrong on all counts as I am your worst nightmare as I have researched islamonazi violence and terrorism since the attack on the Pan Am flight that came down at Lockerbie. Who in their right mind would instigate mass murder of women and children on such a scale but an extremist psychopath. The more I looked at the muslims the more I saw how evil, vile and uncontrollable they were when it came to their treatment of infidels and kuufars. The koran showed me the way to understanding the Islamic mind when I learnt not to read it as a western holy book, but to read it as it was transcribed. That meant finding the first verse spoken and then finding the second one until the abrogated koran was there in front of me. This shows the decline of the mental state of the unholy prophet mo'mad until in the end he was a raving lunatic.

 IT IS YOU AND ALL THE OTHER MUSLIMS WHO ARE THE HYPOCRITES BECAUSE YOU WONT ACCEPT THAT ISLAM TEACHES VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...







 SEE THE MUSLIM ADMITS THAT JEWS AND ZIONISTS ARE THE SAME THING.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






 And you muslims have destroyed every option that was offered to you and will now pay the price. And the price will be a very high one indeed. The Jews are back home, very soon the muslims will also be back home and then they will suffer greatly


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 And as the Islamic histories show they mass murdered them when ever the blood lust rose. They took the young girls as sex slaves and some of the young boys, killing the rest and stealing their property.

 REMEMBER THAT THE GATES OF VIENNA COULD HAPPEN AGAIN AND ISLAM WILL BE PUSHED BACK INTO THE SEA


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 Wasn't that one of the concepts you stole from the Assyrians because you had no intelligent people of your own ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Only because the Palestinians proved themselves to be bad neighbours, and it is Jordanian land that is occupied since 1967. The Palestinians promised to follow the UN charter and have yet to do so 48 years later, how much longer will the world wait for them to keep their promise ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 21, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 And they never fire illegal weapons at the enemies children as that is a war crime that will result in their children becoming targets. If someone targeted your children from Palestine would you still say " well they are only fighting for their freedom" or would you demand they be bombed into submitting ?


----------



## Humanity (Oct 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Let me give you a clue...

I would certainly NOT have been voting for Netanyahu in the last elections!

And yes, they are 'only'(?) fighting for their freedom!

If you were living under constant threat and oppression would you not "fight for your freedom"?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, I would have expected this as a response.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > • Demonstrated their willingness or determined to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There have been several "Occupations" that took place that were not belligerent.  And they all ended on a successful note.  The intentional violent nature of the Arab Palestinians has prolonged the "Occupation." 

But that is water under the bridge.

It is not likely that the contemporary _(post-1948 forward) _Arab Palestinians will, in their lifetime, see a successful, prosperous and free State of Palestine in their lifetime.  The minimum age of of a true refugee born in what is now Israel would be nearly 68 years old.  An 18 year old adult from that time (1948) would be approaching 85 years old.  It is estimated that the people aged 65 or more constituted 2.9% of the total population – 3.2% in the West Bank and 2.4% in the Gaza Strip.

*The Estimated Life expectancy:*

•  Total Population: 75.01 years

•  Male: 72.97 years
•  Female: 77.17 years (2011 est.)​Very soon, there will be no remaining Arab Palestinian that even lived in Israel in 1948 and can claim to be a true refugee; or that will meet the criteria under Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 

Most respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 21, 2015)

Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently.  But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.

"Palestinian refugees do not fall under the legal regime of refugee protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention, its companion instrument the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is eligible to all other refugees. For the Palestinian refugees a special legal regime was created. This regime comprises two special UN agencies - the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as well as certain provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UNHCR statute. UNRWA was established in December 1948 with the dual mission of providing direct relief and establishing a “works program” for the approximately 700.000 refugees that fled what is now known as Israel in 1948. These services have been provided to those meeting UNRWA’s operational definition of “Palestine refugees”: persons whose normal place of residence was in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s mandate today includes also provision of basic needs to those refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) that had to flee their homes in the 1967 war as well as the* descendants of the original male Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967* under the precondition that they live in one of UNRWA’s five fields of operations, whether in a camp or not. Only one third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. "

The legal Situation of Palestinian Refugees, Palestinian Territories


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently.  But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.
> 
> "Palestinian refugees do not fall under the legal regime of refugee protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention, its companion instrument the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is eligible to all other refugees. For the Palestinian refugees a special legal regime was created. This regime comprises two special UN agencies - the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as well as certain provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UNHCR statute. UNRWA was established in December 1948 with the dual mission of providing direct relief and establishing a “works program” for the approximately 700.000 refugees that fled what is now known as Israel in 1948. These services have been provided to those meeting UNRWA’s operational definition of “Palestine refugees”: persons whose normal place of residence was in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s mandate today includes also provision of basic needs to those refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) that had to flee their homes in the 1967 war as well as the* descendants of the original male Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967* under the precondition that they live in one of UNRWA’s five fields of operations, whether in a camp or not. Only one third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. "
> 
> The legal Situation of Palestinian Refugees, Palestinian Territories



Well duh, reading your own link, who the hell made the Palestinians "refugees" between 1948 & 1967 during the Arab/Israeli wars?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I would have expected this as a response.
> 
> ...


Israel has always been a settler colonial project. The Palestinians were to be replaced by foreign settlers. Belligerent occupation is merely a means to that end. Whether the Palestinians and Israelis got along or not would not change that ultimate goal. In fact if the Palestinians were more docile there would be nothing left of Palestine to fight over.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves with whatever little they have for a hundred years.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



You are stating that the Arab nomads of Israel were the ONLY Arabs to have no weapons since 1915?
Everybody else got weapons BEFORE 1948 but NOBODY, including their OWN brethren, would supply them with arms?
You better have a talk with the rest of the Arab world; unfeeling assholes.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 21, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, this is very nearly true; as far as you take it.



montelatici said:


> Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently.  But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.
> 
> "Palestinian refugees do not fall under the legal regime of refugee protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention, its companion instrument the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is eligible to all other refugees. For the Palestinian refugees a special legal regime was created. This regime comprises two special UN agencies - the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as well as certain provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UNHCR statute. UNRWA was established in December 1948 with the dual mission of providing direct relief and establishing a “works program” for the approximately 700.000 refugees that fled what is now known as Israel in 1948. These services have been provided to those meeting UNRWA’s operational definition of “Palestine refugees”: persons whose normal place of residence was in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s mandate today includes also provision of basic needs to those refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) that had to flee their homes in the 1967 war as well as the* descendants of the original male Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967* under the precondition that they live in one of UNRWA’s five fields of operations, whether in a camp or not. Only one third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. "
> 
> The legal Situation of Palestinian Refugees, Palestinian Territories



*(REFERENCE)*

There is a backlash developing where the major contributors are considering a review of just how the UNRWA has demonstrated any measure of success.

*Time to Reconsider U.S. Support of UNRWA --- 5 March 2015*
By Brett D. Schaefer and James Phillips

*Six Decades of Failure*

UNRWA has required enormous financial support from the international community—support that increases as the population served by UNRWA increases. Although UNRWA receives some resources from the U.N. regular budget, most of its funding is provided through voluntary contributions. The U.S. is the largest single-state donor to UNRWA, providing $294 million (24 percent of UNRWA contributions) to support the regular and non-regular budgets in 2013.   Cumulatively, the U.S. has provided roughly $4.9 billion in contributions to UNRWA since 1950.   Despite this generous support, the U.S. has been unable to address a number of concerns about UNRWA’s mandate, operations, and impact.​*---   ---   ---*
*A Counterproductive Definition of Refugee. *

UNRWA was set up to address a temporary crisis involving over 600,000 refugees defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”   Many of these original refugees are deceased, but the refugee population has expanded to 5.09 million individuals because UNRWA redefined and expanded its definition of refugee.    Today, UNRWA has made refugee status eligible to the “descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children.”   Under UNRWA, even if a Palestinian lives in the West Bank or Gaza—territory governed by Palestinians—or earns citizenship in another country, he is still considered a refugee.   Moreover, some registered persons receiving UNRWA assistance are “economic refugees” who resided on the Arab side of the armistice line or were nomads or seasonal workers who were not displaced by the 1948 conflict.​
*(COMMENT)*

Under current UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) --- the definition of a Refugee is a one-of-a-kind nature.  Only the Palestinians are allowed to define themselves and demand compensation.   But I don't see the

Nothing you have said is wrong; but, it is not likely that in the next decade, the UNRWA will survive.  There will be virtually no one that would match the international legal definition of a refugee in any other situation.

While the current situation generally favors the Palestinians, it is almost certain that in the long run, the Palestinians will not be allowed to takeover, overrun, or corrupt the State of Israel, the only country in the region which the world will never have to be worried about becoming a radical Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is very nearly true; as far as you take it.
> 
> ...




That is what people like you said about South Africa, the only country in the region that the world did not have to be worried about becoming a Soviet communist satellite, like its neighbors.  The Palestinians will regain their homeland, the demographics are in their favor.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Good point.  Yes & who can blame the Palestinians for defending themselves against what the Arab countries have done to them in those 100 years.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


Lack of education and technology is against them.
Not to mention the fact that Jews around the world actually care about their fellow Jews when push comes to shove.
Even the most secular Jews supports the Gaza bombardment.

Yeah, yeah, now you're going to post about 3 Jews somewhere with beards who protested against the Gaza bombardment.
You are very unimpressive.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 21, 2015)

The blacks in South Africa had less education and less technology than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  Christians care about their fellow Christians in Palestine.  Christians are slowly turning against Israel.  In a generation or two, Israeli Jews, already a minority in the territory they have control over, will have difficulty maintaining their police state.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> ...Palestinians will regain their homeland, the demographics are in their favor.


You put far too much faith in demographics.

Demographics aren't going to do the Palestinians one damned bit of good, once they're expelled into Jordan.

And, _*when*_ it comes down to that, there won't be a damned thing that the Palestinians will be able to do to stop them, it will happen quickly, there will be no Arab cavalry coming over the hill, and the rest of the world will piss and moan and do nothing, other than to lay-down a couple of embargoes that will last all of two or three years.

Small price to pay, to complete the Reconquista of Eretz Yisrael.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 21, 2015)

There will be no expulsion of the Palestinians to Jordan. The Reconquista of Palestine by the Christians and Muslims will be through demographic change.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There will be no expulsion of the Palestinians to Jordan. The Reconquista of Palestine by the Christians and Muslims will be through demographic change.


Leave the Christians out of this.

They want no part of the Muslim Insanity.

And it is Insanity.

Insanity that is doomed to failure.

It just takes a while to sink through those Neanderthal skulls.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The blacks in South Africa had less education and less technology than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  Christians care about their fellow Christians in Palestine.  Christians are slowly turning against Israel.  In a generation or two, Israeli Jews, already a minority in the territory they have control over, will have difficulty maintaining their police state.



Christians don't give a shit about each other.
I don't see the money or military flying in to help Christians in the Mideast.
Some Christians hate Jews.  They hate Jews in France, Germany, Great Britain.
Don't confuse Jew Hatred with Christians loving each other.
When I see Christians paying each other's mortgages the way Jews do for each other, MAYBE I'll believe it.

God is with us because we put our money where our mouths are.
The only thing that hurts a Jew more than giving someone else money is seeing another Jew being attacked simply BECAUSE he's a Jew.

Now where are those 3 guys with beards?


----------



## montelatici (Oct 21, 2015)

Christians do "give a shit" about each other.  Russians are Christians, and they are supporting the secular Syrian state that has always protected the Christian minority in Syria, for example.  God is not with you at all.  Your history should tell you as much.  Some Christians are confused at the moment and are supporting Israel at the expense of fellow Palestinian Christians, but that is changing.  

You obviously haven't heard of our Catholic charity organizations that pay mortgage payments for the needy:

*Saint Vincent de Paul Society*
The Saint Vincent de Paul Society provides direct assistance to anyone suffering or in need. The society's motto is “No act of charity is foreign to the Society.” In addition to providing cash grants to help with a mortgage or other housing needs, the charity offers medical aid, shelter, food and clothing, and runs a proactive homeless prevention program. The mission is to alleviate the immediate need and work toward creating a long-term solution for the homeowner. Along with employment services, the program provides transportation assistance in the form of gas vouchers and bus tokens.

*Catholic Charities*
Catholic Charities provides emergency financial assistance to help cover housing expenses, including mortgage payments. Help is available regardless of religion. Catholic Charities is one of the leading charities in the Family Eviction Prevention Collaborative of California. Housing specialists meet one on one with homeowners seeking assistance to determine eligibility and explore options to prevent foreclosure.

Charities that Help with Mortgage Payments


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Christians do "give a shit" about each other.  Russians are Christians, and they are supporting the secular Syrian state that has always protected the Christian minority in Syria, for example.  God is not with you at all.  Your history should tell you as much.  Some Christians are confused at the moment and are supporting Israel at the expense of fellow Palestinian Christians, but that is changing.
> 
> You obviously haven't heard of our Catholic charity organizations that pay mortgage payments for the needy:
> 
> ...



It has NOTHING to do with religion, it has EVERYTHING to do with oil and keeping control of the region away from the US.
So how many Christians do you know who pay the mortgage for their less fortunate neighbors.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 21, 2015)

I pay for mortgages for less fortunate neighbors.  I give 500 bucks a week to my local church/diocese and the  diocese makes mortgage payments for less fortunate neighbors.  You really haven't a clue about Christians, do you.  

The Russian Christians disagree with you.

"Russia is waging a "holy war" in Syria to protect innocent Christians against the "tyranny of terrorism," the powerful Russian Orthodox Church declared in a statement on Wednesday as Russian warplanes began pounding targets in Syria."

Russian Orthodox Church supports Putin's 'holy war' in Syria to protect Christians | Christian News on Christian Today


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is very nearly true; as far as you take it.
> 
> ...


You can't really say that UNRWA has failed. It was to provide relief for Palestinian refugees. It was *not* to resolve the issues.

The United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) was to address the problems. As far as I can tell, they held a few meeting until about 1951, flopped, and went home.

The UN has done nothing since.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 22, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 I would not fire illegal weapons at children to strike terror into the minds of their parents. They still have to abide by the IHL, Geneva conventions and UN charter. This means they can only oppose the occupation through the courts and by refusing to assist the occupying forces. They have to act within the laws of the occupied land as they stood at the time it was occupied.  What the Palestinian are doing is a war crime and a crime against humanity and you are defending the terrorism used.

 WHAT DOES THIS MAKE YOU


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 22, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently.  But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.
> 
> "Palestinian refugees do not fall under the legal regime of refugee protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention, its companion instrument the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is eligible to all other refugees. For the Palestinian refugees a special legal regime was created. This regime comprises two special UN agencies - the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as well as certain provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UNHCR statute. UNRWA was established in December 1948 with the dual mission of providing direct relief and establishing a “works program” for the approximately 700.000 refugees that fled what is now known as Israel in 1948. These services have been provided to those meeting UNRWA’s operational definition of “Palestine refugees”: persons whose normal place of residence was in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s mandate today includes also provision of basic needs to those refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) that had to flee their homes in the 1967 war as well as the* descendants of the original male Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967* under the precondition that they live in one of UNRWA’s five fields of operations, whether in a camp or not. Only one third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. "
> 
> The legal Situation of Palestinian Refugees, Palestinian Territories







 And when we read further we come across this


The definition of refugees used by UNRWA is limited to needy persons only. Till today, the beneficiaries that fall under the UNWRA mandate do receive only basic subsistence, like food, clothing and shelter, but are not granted the human rights and fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed by the 1951 Refugee Convention, its accompanying Protocol and the UNHCR statute. These rights and freedoms include freedom of religion (Art.4), rights in property (Art. 13), access to courts (Art. 16) freedom from undue restrictions on employment (Art. 17), primary education (Art. 22) and identity papers (Art. 27) but also the facilitation of a voluntary durable solution, such as repatriation, resettlement and integration. As the legal regime for Palestinian refugees does not give comprehensive protection and not all Palestinian refugees and IDPs are eligible for UNRWA services, it is discussed controversially if, and to which degree the general refugee regulations as guaranteed in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Statute of the UNHCR can be applied to Palestinian refugees as well.



 So in effect they have less rights for being Palestinian refugees because they did not hit the criteria for legal refugee status being recent arrivals to the lands. In other words they were not Palestinians but illegal immigrants from other areas.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 22, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



And israel doesn't have to abide by any conventions or laws...

That just makes you a bigoted, racist zionut you idiot!


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...The UN has done nothing since.


And will do nothing in future, either...

Very few people outside the Arab world really and truly give two shits about the Palestinians...

Mad Dogs don't elicit much sympathy...


----------



## Challenger (Oct 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> No, I suppose not.  We often disagree.
> 
> ...



Hi, I wasn't accusing you of trying to derail the thread, but had I responded the effect would have been to derail the thread. 

Interesting article by Youssef H. Aboul-Enein, who has been promoted to full Commander since he wrote it. I found the article disturbing on several levels, not least of which was Aboul-Enein's lack of understanding of the difference between "Fard 'ain" and "Fard kifayah", something I'd expect a Muslim to grasp. The article seems to be a pre-able towards a theme he later expounds upon at great length in his later book "Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat". Regarding the content, I suspect he's read Robert Taber's "War of the flea", because most of the "tactics" used by Islamist resistance groups have previously been used by the various guerilla groups of the 1960's onwards including the Malayan Rebels, Viet Minh and Viet Cong to name but three. Bizarrely he states Hamas are copying Hezbullah's tactics and vice versa; like regular armies don't learn from each other's experience and apply best practice?

Basicaly nothing Hamas does hasn't already been done by national resistance movements against foreign occupiers, so to refer to them as specifically "Jihadist tactics" is perhaps a bit disingenuous.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 22, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Phoney is an internet troll and really not worth bothering with most of the time.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 22, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Well no, Zionists come in many forms, not all of them are Jewish by any stretch of the imagination. Christian Zionism is quite commonplace in the USA and Europe and, like it or not, there are also Muslim Zionists, each pursuing their own nasty agendas.  Zionism was invented in England in the 17th century by Puritan Protestants, some of whom took it to America. Herzl was a latecomer to Zionism, but he created a mass movement from what were up to then whacky, fringe, ideas.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 22, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



The Muslim and Christian population of Palestine expected the LoN and U.N. to follow their own rules and allow them self-determination, instead they got another dose of foreign colonialism via the Mandate system. Right up until the Jewish colonists effectively seceded from Palestine to create their own state, most Palestinians were expecting a negotiated settlement allowing the majority of the population their sovereign rights. The only people planning for war were the Jewish colonists. The neighbouring Muslim states had no weapons to supply to the Palestinians when the war broke out in 1948, and both Jordan and Lebanon colluded with the Zionists to some extent. So unprepared for war were the Arab states, they all but ran out of ammunition towards the end of the conflict.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 22, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently.  But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.
> ...



The Zionists did.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 22, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The blacks in South Africa had less education and less technology than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  Christians care about their fellow Christians in Palestine.  Christians are slowly turning against Israel.  In a generation or two, Israeli Jews, already a minority in the territory they have control over, will have difficulty maintaining their police state.
> ...





Rehmani said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...





Indeependent said:


> They hate Jews in France, Germany, Great Britain.



Do they? Is that why Israelis are emigrating to settle permanently in Berlin? Is that why the majority of the French Jewish population told Bibi where to stuff his invitation for them to leave and come to Israel, the Zionist paradise. Is thay why most of the British government belong to "Friends of Israel" and the UK has the second largest Jewish population in Europe, 5th largest in the world? 

Gosh, those poor people, experiencing all that hatred...


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 22, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


I should agree with Challenger that should not wast time on phoney comments because you are here to pass time or complete the  number of post assign by the boss means propagandist.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 22, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


Well should accept the fact that Zionist are jews too otherwise they can not go along with jews because jews don't mix up with others. How many of you know jew personally.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 22, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


MJB what if you through from these problem, palestinian people are facing from Jews. I am sure then you would think properly instead.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 22, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



Yes, that is why I put it (not sure it's human) on ignore months ago.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 22, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



It is true that Zionism began with Christians.  What I don't understand is how Chrisitans can refer to Jews as God's chosen people when we consider what he gave them for neighbors in Israel.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 22, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







No they do which is what they do and you have never proven conclusively that they don't. All you have is some reight wing white supremacist Nazi site or islamonazi propaganda outlets that bend the facts to suit their needs


----------



## Humanity (Oct 22, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Ah yes, 'Israel the Righteous'...

Full of virtue and innocence...

At least to the rabid, dimwitted zionuts out there!


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 22, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Is that why the Jewish populating in parts of the UK is in decline after muslims moved to those areas and the police would not give them any protection from the violence. Then arrested the Jews for providing their own protection within the law.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 22, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 Like you do you mean.   What you really mean is you don't want the truth about islam and the muslims to be too well known as the world will turn against you and turn you out of their homelands before you get too numerous.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 22, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...







 Will you accept that the unholy prophet mo'mad started out as a Zionist until the Jews of medina refused to worship at his feet and proclaim him the last prophet ?


----------



## Challenger (Oct 22, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...



Maybe they should take God's hint and leave.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 22, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






 What about the problems faced by the Jews from these Palestinian terrorists then. Maybe if you thought properly you would see that the blame lies with all of islam


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 22, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 And have you proven otherwise after all this time, or have you just regurgitated the same old tired Jew hatreds and Nazi lies


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 22, 2015)

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 Maybe the Palestinians should as well, after all those rusty keys and faked title deeds are not protecting them all that much are they


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 22, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



Israel sure is not exactly "righteous & innocent" for it's treament of Palestinians with peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions keeping Palestinians in Israel instead of trying to help free them back to their native homelands.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 22, 2015)

The Jews invaded Palestine from Europe.  The Christian and Muslim Palestinians are from Palestine.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 22, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



And you churn out the same nonsensical diatribe when you actually have nothing interesting to say...

PHONEY THE TROLL!!!


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 22, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

There was no invasion.  That is just an excuse used by Hostile Arab Palestinians who fought for the Central Powers in the First World War and fought for the Axis Powers in the Second World War.

It was a propaganda effort by Powerful Arab interests, attempting to defy the resolution of the San Remo, the League of Nations, and the General Assembly.   These Hostile Arab Palestinians _[formerly under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (Middle East)] _which were engaged in the deliberate effort to alter by force the post-War Peace settlement, and implementation of the Balfour Declaration.



montelatici said:


> The Jews invaded Palestine from Europe.  The Christian and Muslim Palestinians are from Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

It was an internationally authorized facilitation of immigration.

It was not an invasion, nor was it some sort of colonial program by one of the allied powers.

It was a sanctioned immigration program to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home that was approved by the Allied Powers to which the territory had been surrendered.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> There was no invasion.  That is just an excuse used by Hostile Arab Palestinians who fought for the Central Powers in the First World War and fought for the Axis Powers in the Second World War.
> 
> ...



Monty Python gets his history from Muslim site...What you gonna do.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Jews invaded Palestine from Europe.  The Christian and Muslim Palestinians are from Palestine.








 How can that be as you cant change race, so any arab amongst them came from the Arabian peninsular. The few European Jews that migrated became full citizens under the land owners rules in accordance with international law.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






 Then instead of trolling why don't you prove me wrong. Or would that mean you would be seen as an idiot that cant substantiate their own claims. Still waiting for your links to about 100 of your claims disproven many times over


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...







 And then denies that he was part of an invasion and colonisation project 100 years before the Jews were invited to Palestine. His people were not invited to the Americas


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> There was no invasion.  That is just an excuse used by Hostile Arab Palestinians who fought for the Central Powers in the First World War and fought for the Axis Powers in the Second World War.
> 
> ...


Hey Rocco, I talked to your neighbors. They said I could have your house. OK?

Neither the LoN, nor the Mandate, nor the UN annexed Palestine. None of them had the authority to give any part of it to someone else. It was not theirs to give away and they did not.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



You got there before me on the analogy, dammit!! 

Had Rocco R read or researched the events and circumstances that led up to the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent involvement of the LoN, he would realise that the LoN was run by the victors of WW1 for their own benefit, the LoN merely provided a figleaf of "legality" to cover their ambitions. Had the U.S. Congress ratified Versailles and joined the LoN, things might have been different, but that's a path not taken. San Remo was a blatant carve up along 19th century colonial imperialist lines and in direct contravention of the wishes of indigenous peoples; something the LoN was supposed to protect.

Rocco R might avail himself of two good books on the subject:
"The Balfour Declaration" by Jonathan Schneer and "A line in the Sand" by James Barr.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Balfour-D...ef=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8&tag=ff0d01-20
http://www.amazon.com/Line-Sand-Ang...ef=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8&tag=ff0d01-20
Also of interest is "The Peacemakers" by Margaret Macmillan who also touches on the the region but she deals more with the goings on of the Versailles Peace Conference as a whole.

http://www.amazon.com/Paris-1919-Mo...n_feature_browse-bin:2656020011&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## Challenger (Oct 23, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...





Humanity said:


> At least to the rabid, dimwitted zionuts out there!



Here's one of them...I claim my $50.00


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


Phoney,shoony,joony,poony means confused, can't you find any other job to feed yourself.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You and I are talking about two different things.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

POINT ONE:

You are talking about a "civil real estate" matter.  Civil matters are covered under the Mandate and San Remo Agreement by the phrase:  "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."   Between us, that is a much different discussion that requires patience and calm to discuss.

I have been talking about "independence and sovereignty."  Neither of which is prejudicial to the civil rights pertaining to "real estate ownership."  Real estate ownership is not a dependent components or requirement for the establishment of a "independence and sovereignty" and a Jewish National Home.​
POINT TWO:

The League of Nations, the Mandatory, or the UN DID NOT annexed Palestine.  You are correct, they did not have a need to do that.


ARTICLE I6 ---  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE, JULY 24, 1923

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​The previous sovereignty surrendered the territory to the Allied Powers, and agreed that the "future of these territories" and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## montelatici (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> There was no invasion.  That is just an excuse used by Hostile Arab Palestinians who fought for the Central Powers in the First World War and fought for the Axis Powers in the Second World War.
> 
> ...



Of course it was an invasion.  Hundreds of thousands of Europeans (Jews) descended on Palestine, evicted or otherwise eliminated Christians and Muslims that had been living there for many centuries and then declared themselves rulers of a sovereign state in the area. If that isn't an invasion, I don't know what is. 

You are so blinded by propaganda, you are unable to discern what is so glaringly obvious.

Because the Pope sanctioned the settlement of the Americas by Spain and Portugal, it did not make the process any less of an invasion. 

And, the Jewish settlement of Palestine was certainly a colonial project, by the UK's and the Zionist's own public admission, we have records of this from as early as in 1899, long before any Balfour Declaration.

Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times













*An article about a Conference of Zionists published on July 20, 1899 in the New York Times depicts how the Conference sought to “colonize Palestine”....."*


An article about a Conference of Zionists published on July 20, 1899 in the New York Times expresses that the Zionists “will colonize Palestine.”

The article explains that the conference discussed a paper from the English Zionist Federation “proposing the re-establishment of Judea as an independent State  ..."

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




*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Commitee"*

*July 25, 1926*

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

*Palestine Conference Urges American Jews to Raise $4,500,000 to Spur Colonization*
January 24, 1938


WASHINGTON (Jan. 23)

The National Conference for Palestine, attended by 1,500 representatives from all over the country, called on American Jewry today to raise $4,500,000 in the coming year, after speakers had urged the launching of an unprecedented colonization program in Palestine to absorb German, Rumanian and Polish emigrants.

Palestine Conference Urges American Jews to Raise $4,500,000 to Spur Colonization


*British Leaders Laud Colonization Work in Palestine*
February 26, 1936

British Leaders Laud Colonization Work in Palestine



*"Weizmann Outlines Plan for Colonization of 250,000 Jews in Palestine Within Five Years"
*
Weizmann Outlines Plan for Colonization of 250,000 Jews in Palestine Within Five Years


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 WRONG as the international law of the time gave them the land. Stop confusing 1990 laws with what happened in 1917


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You and I are talking about two different things.
> 
> ...


You keep missing this part.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), *the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples *was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. *It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people * and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

It is universally and legally accepted that *sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants* of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Partition and the Law - 1948​http://www.1948.org.uk/partition-and-the-law/


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 23, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

I have said something along these lines many times.  You guys just don't get it.  Your blinded by selfish political needs.



Challenger said:


> San Remo was a blatant carve up along 19th century colonial imperialist lines and in direct contravention of the wishes of indigenous peoples; something the LoN was supposed to protect.


*(COMMENT)*

Sometimes you have to appreciate the emotions and thoughts of the early 1900's.  The public opinion and political considerations in Britain and America had exhibited great sympathy before the War and the developing anti-Semitic persecution.   These sympathies were translated into action were determined by the exigencies of the War.

Millions of tons of British: shipping had been sunk by German submarines. No American divisions were yet available in the trenches. In this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry, and would make it more difficult for Germany to reduce her military commitments and improve her economic position on the eastern front. 16. Those were the circumstances in which the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration.

” The Zionist leaders [Mr. Lloyd George informed us] gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”​17, To inform World Jewry of the Declaration millions of leaflets were circulated throughout the Jewish communities. They were dropped from the air on German and Austrian towns, and widely distributed through the Jewish belt from Poland to the Black Sea.

18. The Central Powers, meantime, had also recognized the war-value of Jewish sympathy, At the time of the Balfour Declaration the German Government was doing all it could to win the Zionist Movement over to its side; and after the Declaration it hastened, in conjunction with its Turkish allies, to formulate a rival proposition. A kind of chartered company was to be created for German Zionists. It would have a limited form of local self-government and a right of immigration into Palestine. By the end of rgI7 it was known that the Turks were willing to accept a scheme on those lines; but, before the concessions were finally confirmed in Constantinople, Palestine was in General Allenby’s hands.​Understanding that:

We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed ufs in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth.​Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recogmsed that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere.  "I am persuaded," said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, "that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth .“​I understand the intent of the Allied Powers very well; and do not attempt to polarize the reality of the time with the agenda of today's Palestinian claims.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 23, 2015)

All of what you cut and paste does not change the fact that European Jews invaded Palestine, expelled the inhabitants and colonized it.  It doesn't matter that the "Allied Nations" or any other entity, through treaty or otherwise, facilitated the invasion and colonization.

You just don't seem to get it or are so brain washed it is impossible for you to grasp the obvious.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Please understand that the US voice was merely one of many voices in an evolving chorus.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You keep quoting this pro-Palestinian web site that attempts to rewrite history.  The opinion of President Wilson was not law.  In fact the US was not even a member of the League of Nations; although it was an Allied Power.

The Allied Powers DID NOT Annex new territories; although there was no international law that would have prohibited that.  

There was no international understanding pertaining to "sovereignty."  The word is use one time and it is in a descriptive context:

•  "territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them" ​The citation that suggests that the 1919 Article 22 of the Covenant confers the Sovereignty to the indigenous population is entirely erroneous.  And even if that were true, the Treaty of Lausanne (1923/24) would take precedence; since not all the parties to the treaty were also parties to the Covenant. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> All of what you cut and paste does not change the fact that European Jews invaded Palestine, expelled the inhabitants and colonized it.  It doesn't matter that the "Allied Nations" or any other entity, through treaty or otherwise, facilitated the invasion and colonization.
> 
> You just don't seem to get it or are so brain washed it is impossible for you to grasp the obvious.



LOL.  You are so funny Monte with all your nonsense.  Please post here more often.  So little left for us to laugh at these days while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Do you not understand the consequences of the surrender?



montelatici said:


> All of what you cut and paste does not change the fact that European Jews invaded Palestine, expelled the inhabitants and colonized it.  It doesn't matter that the "Allied Nations" or any other entity, through treaty or otherwise, facilitated the invasion and colonization.
> 
> You just don't seem to get it or are so brain washed it is impossible for you to grasp the obvious.


*(COMMENT)*

You can take this ridiculous stance.  But the fact of the matter is, that the territory was not sovereign to the Arab of Palestine.  The Arabs were not invaded.  No matter what the use of the word "colonization" meant or in what context is was use, immigration was approved and facilitated by the Allied Powers to which the territory was surrendered.  It was NOT Arab territory.  It was formerly Ottoman Territory (first sentence in Article 22) surrendered to the Allied Powers (Article 16 - Treaty of Lausanne).  The Arabs were not invaded at all.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 23, 2015)

The Treaty of Lausanne does not have any impact on the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor does it change any of its terms and conditions.  One of these terms contained in Article 22 stated:

"*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world,* there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
*
Setting aside any question of sovereignty, how did the British insure "the well-being and development" of the people living in Palestine in 1919, 90% of which were Christians and Muslims, as required by the Covenant?


----------



## montelatici (Oct 23, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > All of what you cut and paste does not change the fact that European Jews invaded Palestine, expelled the inhabitants and colonized it.  It doesn't matter that the "Allied Nations" or any other entity, through treaty or otherwise, facilitated the invasion and colonization.
> ...



You are out of your depth.  Leave this to the grown ups.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Please understand that the US voice was merely one of many voices in an evolving chorus.
> 
> ...


What part of the Treaty of Lausanne refutes my post?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

Challenger said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...







 Then explain the surrender terms that handed over sovereignty of the former Ottoman lands to the LoN. That this was standard practise then and that the LoN granted 22% of Palestine to the Jews as their NATIONal home


----------



## montelatici (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Do you not understand the consequences of the surrender?
> 
> ...




It doesn't matter who the territory belonged to Rocco.  Transferring people or facilitating the transfer of thousands of people (in this case from another continent)  to an already populated territory, evicting the people living in the area and facilitating the establishment of a sovereign at the expense of the local population constitutes an invasion.  

The Americas were claimed and belonged to European states.  The transfer of people from Europe to the New World, facilitated by various European states constituted an invasion.  There is no way around it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






So when will you be growing up then ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 Read your post and see for yourself


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 And you are part of that invasion so when will you sign over the land you stole and make yourself stateless. 

 In one breath you claim that the muslims owned the land and so should be given all of it. In the next you contradict yourself when you see that international law of 1923 contradicts your claims. The land owners could do what they wanted, as proven by you refusing to give up your stolen land in America


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 I am retired and self supporting, unlike you muslims who are the biggest scroungers on this earth.
 I bet you would not dare say that to my face either being a coward, unless you had 10 heavily armed other muslims to back you up.

 I am your worst nightmare as I have researched islam and the koran and know what your plans are.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Oh come-on now.   This (bolded passage) was obstructed by the Hostile Arab Palestine in several cases.


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


“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​


montelatici said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne does not have any impact on the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor does it change any of its terms and conditions.  One of these terms contained in Article 22 stated:
> 
> "*ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world,* there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Arabs made every effort to obstruct any progress of the Mandatory towards the fulfillment of the "sacred trust."


The London conference was attended on the one side by representatives of the Arabs of Palestine and of the governments of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, on the other by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, which associated with its delegation a number of representatives of Jewish opinion outside the ranks of the Agency itself. Since the Arabs maintained their refusal to recognise the Jewish Agency, it was necessary to organise two separate conferences, one Anglo-Arab and the other Anglo-Jewish. The conversations lasted from the 7th February until the 15th march. The British Delegation presented proposals similar to those which were subsequently published in the White Paper of May, 1939. They were rejected by the Jews in principle; to the Arabs they represented an acceptable basis for discussion, but no agreement was reached.​
It was probably a very good thing that the Arabs did thrort progress


The statement of policy next dealt with the subject of Jewish immigration:-

“In the view of the Royal commission, the association of the policy of the Balfour Declaration with the Mandate system implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would sooner or later be overcome. It has been the hope of British governments ever since the Balfour Declaration was issued that in time the Arab population, recognising the advantages to be derived form Jewish settlement and development in Palestine, would become reconciled to the further growth of the Jewish National Home. This hope has not been fulfilled. The alternatives before His Majesty’s Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy means rule by force. apart from other considerations, such a policy seems to His Majesty’s government to be contrary to the whole spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to their specific obligations to the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate. Moreover, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine must be based sooner or later on mutual tolerance and goodwill; the peace, security and progress of the Jewish National Home itself require this. Therefore His Majesty’s government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish national Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.”

It was accordingly provided that, after the admission of not more than 75,000 additional immigrants during the five years beginning in April, 1939, “no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”​
As it turns out, the establishment of a Jewish National Home under the umbrella of Arab Sovereignty, would have met with dire consequences.  The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany).  The Arab Palestinians might have sold out the entire national home.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> I have said something along these lines many times.  You guys just don't get it.  Your blinded by selfish political needs.
> 
> ...





RoccoR said:


> ...You guys just don't get it. Your blinded by selfish political needs.



Dear teapot, love kettle. Such accusations don't further the discussion in any way. Official reports, couched in flowery language, like the Peel commission which you quote are but one indicator of what was going on in the minds of the British government, but not the be all and end all.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany).



Prove it.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Oh come-on now.   This (bolded passage) was obstructed by the Hostile Arab Palestine in several cases.
> 
> ...



How does any of the above  change the fact that the European Jews invaded and colonized Palestine facilitated by the British against the wishes of the resident Christians and Muslims of Palestine.

The Native Americans were at least as uncooperative with the invading Europeans as the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were towards the invading Europeans.  Did that make the dispossession of the Native Americans any more justified? 

Somehow you believe that the Christians and Muslims should have assisted in their own dispossession.  That is nonsense.

By the way cutting and pasting volumes  non-germane does not help your argument.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Oh come-on now.   This (bolded passage) was obstructed by the Hostile Arab Palestine in several cases.
> 
> ...



"The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). "

You are worse than Netanyahu with your invented history.  The Palestinian Christians and Muslims did not "side" with the Axis Powers you nitwit. If anything they supported the Arab rebellion against the Turks in support of the Allies.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Do you not understand the consequences of the surrender?



The Arabs didn't surrender, they were part of the victorious allies and they helped liberate the lands that became Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan, by European fiat and against the wishes of the native population.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger,  et al,
> ...







 Tough as the laws at the time were on the side of the LoN and they decided what was what. They tried to do the decent thing and involve all parties in the working parties and the arab muslims refused point blank to have anything to do with the mandate or the running of Palestine. This meant that they were left out and had no further say in what was to happen. They resorted to their usual violence and terrorism to try and force the issue and were soundly thrashed. The Palestinians are their own worst enemies and only have themselves to blame. They could have had a fully functioning nation that would be the envy of the M.E. and instead they have a derelict nation with no hope for the future.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...







 THEY DID NOT INVADE BECAUSE THE LAWS WERE DIFFERNTY THEN, AND THE LANDS OWNERS INVITED THEM TO MIGRATE

 Did the lands owners invite you Catholics to invade their country


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 They did as the Mufti told them and they sided with the axis powers




Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Palestinian Arab and Nazi political leaders said that they had a common cause against International Jewry. The most significant practical effect of Nazi policy on Palestine between 1933 and 1938, however, was to radically increase the immigration rate of German and other European Jews and to double the population of Palestinian Jews. The Mufti had sent messages to Berlin through Heinrich Wolf, the German Consul in Jerusalem endorsing the advent of the new regime as early as March, 1933, and was enthusiastic over the Nazi anti-Jewish policy, and particularly the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany. “[The Mufti and other sheikhs asked] only that German Jews not be sent to Palestine

One consequence of the Mufti's opposition to England's role as the Mandatory power in Palestine and his rejection of the British attempts to work out a compromise between Zionists and Palestinian Arabs was that the Mufti was forced to flee Palestine. Many of his followers, who had fought Jews and the English in Palestine, followed him and continued to work for his political goals. Among the most notable Palestinian soldiers in this category was Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni, a kinsman and officer of the Mufti who had been wounded twice in the early stages of the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. The Mufti sent Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni to Germany in 1938 for explosives training. Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni then worked with the Mufti to support the Golden Square regime, and consequently was sentenced to prison by the British after they retook Iraq. He subsequently became the popular leader of approximately 50,000 Palestinian Arabs who joined the Mufti's Army of the Holy War during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. His fellow Iraq-veteran and German collaborator Fawzi al-Qawuqji became a rival general in that same struggle against Zionism.[45]


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 23, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Do you not understand the consequences of the surrender?
> ...







 Not all, just some and they did not include the Palestinian muslims who went along with the Mufti's commands to fight with the Germans.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 23, 2015)

Just curious, who's taht guy with Hitler?  Is it a Zionist?

http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 23, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Just curious, who's taht guy with Hitler?  Is it a Zionist?
> 
> http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg



And then there are those who actually said the Jews & Muslims got along just fine in the holy land prior to 1948.  It's called Palestinian mentality.

http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici, Challenger,  et al,

I think you are a bit confused.  _(While I'm not beyond making mistakes --- I don't think I'm a silly or foolish person.)_



montelatici said:


> "The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). "
> 
> You are worse than Netanyahu with your invented history.  The Palestinian Christians and Muslims did not "side" with the Axis Powers you nitwit. If anything they supported the Arab rebellion against the Turks in support of the Allies.


*(COMMENT)*

Two different wars.

The Arab _(Prince Faisal of the Hejaz -- not the Arab of Palestine)_ and the alliance against the Turks was WWI.  Sherif Hussein bin Ali _(Father of Prince Faisal --- and --- Emir / Grand Sharif of Mecca)_ helped organize the Arabs of the Hejaz in securing independence from the ruling Ottoman Turks.
 Hajj Amin al-Husseini, before he found Allah (The Most Merciful - PBUH) served as an Company Grade Officer _(Captain Artillery Officer 47th Brigade)_ in the Ottoman Army during WWI against the Allied Powers.
 Ahmed Hilmi Pasha, before he tried to be the first Prime Minister of the All Palestine Government, was a General in the Ottoman Army
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*​
The Axis Powers and Germany refers to WWII.
Our friend "Phoenall" has already mentioned the collusion and collaborations of the Grand Mufti with the German Axis Power; against the Allied Powers.
Hasan Salama, before he became the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army in 1948, was a member of a Special Commando Unit of the Waffen SS, as a paratrooper.
Fawzi al-Qawuqji,  before he became the Field Commander during the 1948 Palestine War Arab Liberation Army (ALA), was a Colonel of the Wehrmacht.
But, in the end, your confusion --- it makes no difference.  The reason the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration - South (OETA-S) was established in Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre, is because it was enemy territory (not liberated territory).  



Challenger said:


> The Arabs didn't surrender, they were part of the victorious allies and they helped liberate the lands that became Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan, by European fiat and against the wishes of the native population.


*(COMMENT)*

You are again confused.  The Arab Revolt (June 1916) was a brain child from the Emir of Mecca.   Mecca is in the Hejaz.   The tribes involved were mostly the irregular calvary  (6000 to 7000 in strength) organized by the  legendary COL T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia).
​


Challenger said:


> By the way cutting and pasting volumes  non-germane does not help your argument.


*(COMMENT)*

All the information I presented was important to the issues under discussion.  Whether is be the interpretation of the Mandatory, the understanding of the Arab Palestinian, or the general intent of the treaties and concepts, it was all relevant to the understand and the background that lead to the decision.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 23, 2015)

What does WW2 have to do with events and treaties that were signed well before WW2. How could Jerusalem be "occupied enemy territory" during WW2?  What "enemy" held Jerusalem before and during WW2?

Talk about confusion.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> I am your worst nightmare as I have researched islam and the koran and know what your plans are



REALLY?

So which zionut research document did you read on Islam?

You are clueless Phoney...

Do prove us wrong and tell us where you have researched Islam and the koran...

I fear that you have read the zionut websites, been fed misinformation from other zionut websites and zionut blogs....

But I look forward to hearing you research sources...


----------



## Humanity (Oct 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> I bet you would not dare say that to my face either being a coward, unless you had 10 heavily armed other muslims to back you up.



Hahaha...

I say it to your face Phoney, you and me babe, how about it? ;-)

I look forward to that!

Not been to flat capped, whipped breeding country for a long time....


----------



## Humanity (Oct 23, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Just curious, who's taht guy with Hitler?  Is it a Zionist?
> 
> http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg



What? Is it Netanyahu?

Bum chums together!


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 23, 2015)

Humanity said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, who's taht guy with Hitler?  Is it a Zionist?
> ...



Nope, not Netanyahu.  But don't feel bad.  Try again.  'Atta boy.


http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 23, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

I was trying to clarify some points.



montelatici said:


> What does WW2 have to do with events and treaties that were signed well before WW2. How could Jerusalem be "occupied enemy territory" during WW2?  What "enemy" held Jerusalem before and during WW2?
> 
> Talk about confusion.


*(COMMENT)*

I did not say that the OETA-S was WWII.  The OETA-S was between 1918 _(the surrender Armistice of Mudros)_ and 1920 _(before the Civil Administration)_.  My assumptions was that you already understood this, since it was all mentioned before.  The OETA-S was instituted because it was enemy territory.

If you go back to the Posting #545, you will notice that YOU made the statement that:  "The Palestinian Christians and Muslims did not "side" with the Axis Powers you nitwit."  In fact this statement was wrong on two counts.  My first comment was to address this confusion inject by you.

Further, YOU stated that:  "If anything they supported the Arab rebellion against the Turks in support of the Allies."  It is a matter of fact that the Arab Rebellion was between 1936 and 1939 _(WWII Stated in 1939)_.  It was not a rebellion against the Turks _(having been defeated 18 years prior).  _I assumed you meant  "The *Arab Revolt" *(1916–1918) which had nothing to do with Palestinians.   The Emir and Grand Sharif of Mecca _(Sherif Hussein bin Ali)_ King of the Hejaz, organized the Arab Revolt to gain Kingdoms for his surviving sons and independence from the Ottoman Turks.   At that point in time, as mentioned in Posting #535, Palestinians were not operating on the side of the Allied Powers.  It was quite the opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 23, 2015)

You are conflating WW 1 and WW 2.  Make up your mind.  In any case:

1. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine during before and during WW 1 were more likely to support the Allies who were fighting against the Turks from whom they wanted independence.

"On the eve of World War I, the anticipated break-up of the enfeebled Ottoman Empire raised hopes among both Zionists and Arab nationalists. The Zionists hoped to attain support from one of the Great Powers for increased Jewish immigrationand eventual sovereignty in Palestine, whereas the Arab nationalists wanted an independent Arab state covering all the Ottoman Arab domains. From a purely demographic standpoint, the Zionist argument was not very strong — in 1914 they comprised only 12 percent of the total population of Palestine. The nationalist ideal, however, was weak among the Arabs, and even among articulate Arabs competing visions of Arab nationalism — Islamic, pan-Arab, and statism — inhibited coordinated efforts to achieve independence."

Palestine During World War I | Jewish Virtual Library

2.  The Arab rebellion before WW 2 was a rebellion against the colonial power, Great Britain that was intent on establishing a European colony in Palestine by resettling Europeans there and facilitating the eviction of the Muslims and Christians.  Of course they would rebel against the British.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Britain closed down Palestinian organizations by force, arresting, exiling, or killing their leaders.


Ah, palistanians have been misbehaving then too.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Funny garbaggio.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Did you respond to my request to supply your historical knowledge base?
> ...


Oh, palistanian "saudi shekhs" was a hilarious stuff, of course! Pure garbaggio, indeed.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> ...Great Britain that was intent on establishing a European colony in Palestine by resettling Europeans there...


More like the Brits desired to establish a Trip-Wire and Listening Post and Buffer-State between the slowing resurgent Muslims and The West.

Not to mention helping return the Original People of The Book to their Spiritual Mothership, while thinning-out the Jewish population in Christian Europe.



> ...and facilitating the eviction of the Muslims and Christians...


Nahhhhh... just the Muslims... the Christians were not to be touched.



> ...Of course they would rebel against the British.


Well, the Muslims, anyway... it's not like Christians joined-in, in any appreciable numbers.

For Christians, getting out from under the heel of Muslim tyranny and dhimmitude was a blessing, and Jews of Nova Yisrael could be counted on to leave them alone.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 24, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > ...Great Britain that was intent on establishing a European colony in Palestine by resettling Europeans there...
> ...


You are full of shit as usual.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


What a shame that neighboring Islamist nations refuse a right of return for their Arab / Islamist homies you incorrectly call Pal'istanians. 

But as we know, Lebanon made the crucial mistake of allowing Arab / Islamist faux Pal'istanians across their border and that caused them nothing but a disaster.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 24, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Only those Zionists in Israel ever made peace offerings offerings to Palestinians, built a security fence & granted Palestinians their own land so they could stay.  Shame on them for not treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers did & still do.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> > ...Well, the Muslims, anyway... it's not like Christians joined-in, in any appreciable numbers. For Christians, getting out from under the heel of Muslim tyranny and dhimmitude was a blessing, and Jews of Nova Yisrael could be counted on to leave them alone.
> 
> 
> You are full of shit as usual.


Nope.

Did Christians side with Muslim-Arab Palestinians in any appreciable numbers in the 1948 War?

No?

Then, I guess I was not full of shit about that, after all.

Was the elimination of Turkish-Palestinian Muslim-Arab tyranny and dhimmitude something that the Christians wanted to continue?

No?

Then, I guess I was not full of shit about that, either.

You're ubiquitous, Tinny, but not exactly formidable.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 24, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



The funny thing is, these nutcases really do believe the European invaders of Palestine are indigenous and the indigenous Christians and Muslims come from somewhere else.  Even with documentary film evidence they are so brainwashed they continue with their nonsensical assertions. You couldn't make this stuff up.  

Ok let's watch a movie:


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 24, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > > ...Well, the Muslims, anyway... it's not like Christians joined-in, in any appreciable numbers. For Christians, getting out from under the heel of Muslim tyranny and dhimmitude was a blessing, and Jews of Nova Yisrael could be counted on to leave them alone.
> ...


The Palestinians (Muslims & Christians) had no army. The war just happened around them. Israel ethnically cleansed the Palestinians. Their religion didn't matter.

At the time of the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, it is estimated that the Christians of Palestine numbered some 350,000. Almost 20 percent of the total population at the time, they constituted a vibrant and ancient community; their forbears had listened to St. Peter in Jerusalem as he preached at the first Pentecost. Yet Zionist doctrine held that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land.” Of the 750,000 Palestinians that were forced from their homes in 1948, some 50,000 were Christians—7 percent of the total number of refugees and 35 percent of the total number of Christians living in Palestine at the time.

In the process of “Judaizing” Palestine, numerous convents, hospices, seminaries, and churches were either destroyed or cleared of their Christian owners and custodians. In one of the most spectacular attacks on a Christian target, on May 17, 1948, the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate was shelled with about 100 mortar rounds—launched by Zionist forces from the already occupied monastery of the Benedictine Fathers on Mount Zion. The bombardment also damaged St. Jacob’s Convent, the Archangel’s Convent, and their appended churches, their two elementary and seminary schools, as well as their libraries, killing eight people and wounding 120.

Forgotten Christians​


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


What's funny is that the prayer leader at your mosque has vacant-minded types like you to mouth the bait. 

Palestine was, historically, a geographic region, not a nation-state. The silly label you parrot about "indigenous Pal'istanians" is not bolstered by your cutting and pasting of goofy YouTube videos. 

Have you been tested for exposure to the debilitating disease of "_Pal'istanian Mentality_"?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Not forgotten Christians, just ethnically cleansed Christians as is the case with Christianity throughout the muhammedan Middle East.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 24, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > I am your worst nightmare as I have researched islam and the koran and know what your plans are
> ...






 Started out with Pickthall of course and then went on to lesser known translations like that of Mirza Abul fazl and Abdullash Yusf Ali who also wrote many notations to explain the verses in his translation.  Want to look them up to see how I researched the koran while you just take the islamonazi word for what it contains.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 24, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you would not dare say that to my face either being a coward, unless you had 10 heavily armed other muslims to back you up.
> ...




Of course but don't be surprised if you find no WHIPPETS or flat caps outside of Yorkshire. A long time since I went to sunderland where they still race whippets and wear flat caps. Drove past it today as fast as I could


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 24, 2015)

Humanity said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, who's taht guy with Hitler?  Is it a Zionist?
> ...






 Definitely bum chums as I believe that is the initiation into islam, or so I have been told


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> You are conflating WW 1 and WW 2.  Make up your mind.  In any case:
> 
> 1. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine during before and during WW 1 were more likely to support the Allies who were fighting against the Turks from whom they wanted independence.
> 
> ...







 You have just been shown the documentation that says they fought for the Ottomans because the British were going to give land to the Jews.

 Then you contradict yourself with your second reply.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Where is the proof that these people are Christians or muslims ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Look at your source and tell the board with a straight face that they are unbiased


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 24, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Does it really make a difference?



montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You cannot even define what the term indigenous population means in terms of international law.  Are you a habitual resident to the location where you now reside?

The designation of indigenous people is a red herring; and forming an argument around that kernel is a red herring.  The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295) is a 21st Century concept expressed in a non-binding resolution.  It is neither temporally applicable to the 1948-thru-1973 Arab Israel Conflicts, nor is it applicable to the any aspect prior to 2007.  _(Note: The concept of Indigenous People is not reflected in the UDHR, CESCR or the CCPR.)_

What has Entry into force of the Covenants --- 

•  The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force on 3 January 1976, three months after the date of deposit with the Secretary-General of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession, as provided in article 27. As at 30 September 1995, the Covenant had been ratified or acceded to by 132 States.

•  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force on 23 March 1976, three months after the date of deposit with the Secretary-General of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession, as provided in article 49. As at 30 September 1995, the Covenant had been ratified or acceded to by 132 States.​
*(QUESTIONS)*

 Think about your definition of an indigenous person.  

Where do you live?
Are you indigenous to your local?  
When did you become indigenous?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Oct 24, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > > ...Well, the Muslims, anyway... it's not like Christians joined-in, in any appreciable numbers. For Christians, getting out from under the heel of Muslim tyranny and dhimmitude was a blessing, and Jews of Nova Yisrael could be counted on to leave them alone.
> ...



_"Did Christians side with Muslim-Arab Palestinians in any appreciable numbers in the 1948 War?"_

Of course they did, they fought alongside Muslim Palestinians in mixed militias in defense of Palestine, and there were also all-Christian militias such as the Defenders of Beit Jala.

*Arab Christians in British Mandate Palestine: Communalism and Nationalism, 1917-1948*

_"Was the elimination of Turkish-Palestinian Muslim-Arab tyranny and dhimmitude something that the Christians wanted to continue?"_

You should probably stay off the sauce when you post.  Reread what you wrote, it makes no sense. 

However, Christian Palestinians stood (and still stand) shoulder to shoulder with fellow Muslim Palestinians against Zionist Israel.  Christians, were key members of the Arab Delegation sent to London to lobby for independence after WW 1.  

".....your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, ...."


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


----------



## montelatici (Oct 24, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Does it really make a difference?
> 
> ...



How about using the term "native" to a place or territory.  This is in contrast from being born and resident elsewhere.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 24, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Are you implying that they made this up? Israel hates Christians the same as Muslims.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 24, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Well then, we have to consider the issue of longevity.



montelatici said:


> How about using the term "native" to a place or territory.  This is in contrast from being born and resident elsewhere.


*(COMMENT)*

Native is another question.


​
What we call today,in America as "Native Americans" are actually a composite of three different migrations and the outcome of several wars between tribes.  Between 250 BC and 900 AD _(known as the Woodland Period)_, archeological excavations show that intertribal warfare was intense with various tribes attempting to expand their domain.   Some tribes completely disappeared; partly as an outcome of intertribal rivalry.  Where I live, the Adena and Hopewell Indians were dated to the area as far back as the Paleo-indian Period (13,000 BC to 7,000 BC).  But these two _(native or indigenous)_ tribes were largely destroy and assimilated by the Shawnee of the Ohio Valley that did not escape westward.  Now are the Shawnee considered Native American since they displaced the Shawnee?  (Rhetorical)  Of course they are Native Americans.  Just as I am indigenous to the area.

It's like pornography and terrorism.   I may not be able to legally define them, but I know them when I see them. 

The Jews that established Israel in 1948, will soon be (if not already) indigenous to Israel.  They've been there for over half a century; and soon there will no longer be any living survivor of the originally immigrants that came to the territory in the time before the establishment of the State.   They will have been born there, and they will have grown-up there.  The Arab Palestinians are exactly the opposite.  Soon there will be no surviving migrants that lived in what is now Israel.  There will not have been any remaining members that lived and grew-up in the territory.  They will no longer be indigenous to what is now known as the State of Israel. 

All peoples have some connection to the first humans that migrated out of Africa.  We all came from someplace.  And all the original migrants of 50K years ago have been replaced by someone else.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...The Palestinians (Muslims & Christians) had no army...


The Muslim-Arab Palestinians had militias, and these ran like rabbits in 1948, when confronted with Jewish militia units.

The Christian Palestinians had no militias, and did not joint those of their Muslim neighbors nor the armies of their Muslim neighbor-countries, in any appreciable numbers, at any time during the past 67 years. They know that they would fare even worse, once again, as Dhimmis to the Muslims; that would be like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.



> ...The war just happened around them. Israel ethnically cleansed the Palestinians...


Yep. The Muslim-Arabs had already proven themselves to be Mad Dogs in their dealings with their Jewish neighbors, in the years and decades prior to 1948, and could not be trusted to live alongside the Jews in peace. So they pushed them out of the way as a survival tactic. In their place, you would have done the same, even though you'll never admit it.



> ...Their religion didn't matter...


An existential threat is an existential threat; including the occupying of land deemed too close to one's own, to ensure survival and safety of one's own.



> ...At the time of the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, it is estimated that the Christians of Palestine numbered some 350,000...


Yep.

Christians were killed and hurt and displaced too. Difficult for that not to happen, during the course of an existential birthing-war.

But they were not killed and hurt and displaced at anything like the same rate (never mind actual volume) as the far more hostile and lethal Muslim-Arab adversary.

Had Israel directed an intentional and sustained campaign against Christians, the State of Israel would not have enjoyed the support of much of Europe, the US, and The West.

Most damage or loss inflicted upon Christian folk nowadays is a matter of mere land-acquisition, not blood feuding, as is the case with the Mad Dog Muslim-Arabs of the region.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...Are you implying that they made this up? Israel hates Christians the same as Muslims...


Nonsense.

More Muslim tactics attempting to Divide and Conquer - to create a split between Israel and The West.

No sale.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 24, 2015)

Hollie said:


> ...Not forgotten Christians, just ethnically cleansed Christians as is the case with Christianity throughout the muhammedan Middle East.


Christianity is not even an 'ethnicity'.

And, if one wants to see a modern-day example of the persecution of Christians, one need look no further than Saudi Arabia - the Mothership of Islam.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


A lot has happened since WWI.

Christians and Muslims were never 'close', and the events of recent decades have only served to widen the breach.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 24, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



All one has to do is look at the Christians all over the world being captured & killed by radical Islamists supported by Palestinians & their friends. Like Monte says, Muslims get along just great with their love for Christians.  Right Pali supporters?

List of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians


----------



## montelatici (Oct 24, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well then, we have to consider the issue of longevity.
> 
> ...




No, we do not have to consider longevity at all.  Unless a colonial enterprise is able to completely destroy the culture and depopulate or substantially out reproduce the people they are attempting to displace, the native people will; eventually regain their land.  This is what happened in Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Southwest Africa etc.  In North America the colonial enterprises were able to eliminate the native population in most areas.  In others, like Bolivia, the native people survived and now outnumber the Europeans and govern the country.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 And the same Winston Churchill stood up in the house of Commons and told the assembled M.P's that the arab muslims were illegally migrating to Palestine. I see you are now also acting as an advertiser for a commercial book seller, this is against the rules so will the mods please take the right action.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...







 OFF TOPIC SPAMMING AND TROLLING AGAIN, what has the nations above to do with the remit of this board.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 yep making the Jews native to Palestine and the arabs native to arabia.     What a complete and utter moron you are


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...














 Yes I am as I cant see how Lebanon has anything to do with Israel, and why do you trot out this propaganda crap all the time.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You are psycho who spreading hate but nothing and I will you terrorist as well to me any who killing innocent people is terrorist and Israel is number one terrorist and you are their propagandist agent.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Because Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine and Syria used to be one country but your master divide the region so they can place Israel there as well why don't you understand dumb, this simple thing that  they are all one nation before Israel.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 25, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> ...You are psycho who spreading hate but nothing and I will you terrorist as well to me any who killing innocent people is terrorist and Israel is number one terrorist and you are their propagandist agent.


Want Israel to stop killing so-called Palestinians?

Then the Palestinians must stop giving them reasons to kill them.

Stop the rocket barrages, stop the suicide attacks, stop the random attacks upon Israelis, and Israel will stop retaliating.

You are being squeezed off of the few postage-stamp -sized fragments of land that you still control, and you are being walled-off, to prevent you from harming sane people.

Not even your half-crazy Muslim-Arab neighbor-countries want anything to do with you - most of you are too Mad Dog -like for them to feel safe, taking you in.

Even stupid people know better than to poke at a Lion with blunt sticks.

In truth, you need to leave, and not come back.

Get your families out of there, while there is still time, and shake off the insanity of Hamas and Fatah, and build new and safe and happier lives, someplace else.

Meanwhile, put the stick down... before you get hurt again... assuming that you're smart enough to understand why it is necessary to put down the stick.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 25, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> ...Because Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine and Syria *used to be one country* but your master divide the region so they can place Israel there as well why don't you understand dumb, this simple thing that  they are all one nation before Israel.


What was the *name* of this so-called 'nation'?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The video was not about Lebanon.

You need to keep up.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well then, we have to consider the issue of longevity.
> 
> ...


Palestine, and the other new states in the region, came into being without the evolutionary or revolutionary processes of most other countries. Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. Palestinians became Palestinian and citizens of Palestine by international law in 1924 and domestic law in 1925.

Nothing can undo that.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


States rise and fall all the time.

Palestine was still-born.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 25, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > ...You are psycho who spreading hate but nothing and I will you terrorist as well to me any who killing innocent people is terrorist and Israel is number one terrorist and you are their propagandist agent.
> ...



Palestinians attack Israel & kill one or more Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 25, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > ...Because Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine and Syria *used to be one country* but your master divide the region so they can place Israel there as well why don't you understand dumb, this simple thing that  they are all one nation before Israel.
> ...



With the exception of a little more than a century of Christian rule (1099 until 1291 AD)  from 637 AD until the 14th century conquest by the Ottomans, the Arab Caliphates ruled what is now Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan Syria and well beyond.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






So you admit that the Palestinians are terrorist then as they attack with the intention of killing the innocent children.

 The biggest terrorists are the muslims as shown by their attacks all over the world, just look at the genocides they have been involved in, and the terrorist attacks in America when 3000 innocents were mass murdered, or the terrorist attacks in London the mass murdered 50 innocents. Then look at Syria with 300,000 innocents mass murdered, Ethiopia when millions were mass murdered, Somali where millions are being murdered. lastly the Armenian massacre when 1 million were murdered by muslim terrorists, and India when 50 million innocents lost their lives as a direct result of islamonaxi terrorism


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 What country was that then, and who was its ruler under the Ottomans. When did it come into existence and what was its capital


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Then why was LEBANON plastered all across the screen then. It is you that needs to keep up


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 Apart from it never happened like that did it.    How about showing these post war treaties that made Palestine a nation, and show the Palestinian leaders signature at the bottom ?   Don't forget the LoN treaties say that this is the extent of the mandate for Palestine hereinafter referred to as Palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 WRONG try again as the arab muslims only ruled Palestine for 22 years.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


That's not what your colleague said.

He-she-it claimed that somebody's "master" had arranged to subdivide the region so they could 'place Israel there'.

This specificity pertains to a modern-era nation-state - supposedly "one country", according to your colleague.

The challenge to your colleague was to identify that "one country" that was parsed to make room for Israel.

And, your own defaulting to ancient history notwithstanding, the question still stands...

In the context of a country that was divided to make room for modern-day Israel...

What was the *name* of this so-called 'nation'?

-----------------

< this ought to be good, coming from anyone silly enough to try to answer it with a straight face >


----------



## montelatici (Oct 25, 2015)

You need to look up what "ancient" refers to.  Certainly not the 14th century.

What was divided to make room for the European invaders was the unitary Turkish state.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you have made a mistake.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There is no WWI era treaty that outlines the borders of Palestine, the territory to which the mandate applied.

The Allied Powers had not taken a position on that yet.  The Paulet-Newcombe Agreement had been approved.  But that only delineated the line between the French Mandate Area and the British Mandate Area.

On 15 May 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah; pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant (24 July 1923).  While the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement (7 March 1923) established the northern border for the territory subject to the Mandate, it was the formal recognition of the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah that set the western edge of the provisional recognition.   This effectively established the eastern boundary of the territory subject to the Mandate of Palestine (less Jordan) and the western border of the Emirate (Jordan).

On March 22, 1946, Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty recognized the sovereignty of Transjoran, and closed the Mandate authority over the Emirate --- recognizing the status of Transjordan as a fully-independent State and the Emir as the sovereign thereof.

Order of events:

•  7 March 1923  Approval of Paulet-Newcombe Agreement
•  15 May 1923, Formal recognition of the Emirate of Transjordan
•  24 July 1923, Treaty of Lausanne (came into force on 6 August 1924)​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you have made a mistake.
> 
> ...


OK, what part of all that refutes my post?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

All of it refutes your post.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I think you have made a mistake.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

THERE is "NO Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties."  No citizenship of a independent nation.

They became citizens of the Mandatory Government for the Territory to which the Mandate was applied.   

The Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Order are League Council Orders to the Mandatory.  They are not international laws.  The League was not a legislative or judicial body.

I am challenging the statement  "Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties."   What treaties and where are the boundaries defined?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> You need to look up what "ancient" refers to.  Certainly not the 14th century.
> 
> What was divided to make room for the European invaders was the unitary Turkish state.


The Turkish Ottoman Empire had been '_The Sick Man of Europe_' for a couple of centuries prior to their poor choice of allies in WWI.

The Ottoman Empire was not broken up to make room for a Jewish state, otherwise, Jews would also control vast regions which they do not presently control.

The Ottoman Empire was broken up because it had threatened Europe for centuries, up to the 18th, anyway, and, collectively, Europe wanted it crushed like a bug, so that it could never rise up again, to threaten Vienna, or an independent Greece, or to wage another Battle of Lepanto in the Med.

The insertion of a Jewish homeland was an afterthought and sideshow - not a primary and driving motive.

Your problem here is that you cannot make such a sale to those who actually know a little something about Euro-Turkic relations and history, like you can with the Great Unwashed.

Epic Fail.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

montelatici said:


> You need to look up what "ancient" refers to.  Certainly not the 14th century.
> 
> What was divided to make room for the European invaders was the unitary Turkish state.







 The Middle East originally owned by the Ottomans


----------



## Humanity (Oct 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



What a stupidly immature response!


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 All of it as it shows that no nation of Palestine existed before 1988


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






No it shows what you muslims are like, sodomy is allowed as long as it is just animal urges and not attraction.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 26, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ...Are you implying that they made this up? Israel hates Christians the same as Muslims...
> ...



"Muslim tactics" Not necessary... 

Israel is doing a great job in creating a split between them and the west all by itself


----------



## Humanity (Oct 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



No it shows you as the rather ridiculous, immature, racist zionut that you are


----------



## Humanity (Oct 26, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Something that the zionuts need to remember!


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 26, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Not really, but, if it helps you to sleep at night...


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 26, 2015)

Humanity said:


> ...Something that the zionuts need to remember!


Not to worry. By the time that Israel falls for a second time, people won't even remember the word 'Palestine', except as a historical footnote.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 26, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Please control your anger and read about the Ottoman Empire find there that this region was administered from Damascus. Please accept the facts and don't alter the history as jew are expert in it.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Again what it make different that Arab or Turk, they are Muslim and they are the one who allowed jew to resettle in holy land and jew should thanks full to them and do the right thing means do the same and make the region peaceful, and that peace will help the peaceful world.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Look baby I am not your teacher, please grown up and show some honesty and accept the fact and don't live on it and find some good job.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Look Israel is a country, listed in UNO and people of palestine are freedom fighter if Palestinian involved in those incident then Israel is responsible for that too as invader. 50 million hindu killed by muslim is wrong means there should be less hindu in india than muslim.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 26, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


Israel is invader and israel should vacant the land of Palestine, simple.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I think phoney live here. Means he just come here to kill his time.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 26, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > ...You are psycho who spreading hate but nothing and I will you terrorist as well to me any who killing innocent people is terrorist and Israel is number one terrorist and you are their propagandist agent.
> ...


It mean if we invade your privacy and you have no right to protest, it would be Ok.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Does anyone know what language this looney tunes writes in?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






 What race are muslims again ?    And what did Ayotollah Khomieni write in his book about just this ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 But we have the right to protest don't we, and we also have the right to use excessive force to deter any further attacks and you cant do a damn thing about it.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...





Pidgin, he/she gets it from islamtranslate


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 What is a zionut, what plant does it grow on. Is it some new G.M. food source just for islamonazi's that makes them 10% smarter giving them an I.Q. of 11


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 An empire is not a nation so what was the name of this nation again


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 According to Islamic history the muslims went on murder fests that were to keep the Jews and Christians in line by means of terror. The many verses in the koran and hadiths tell the world that the muslims must "KILL THE JEWS"


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 It is a simple enough question as no maps I am aware of shows all them places to have once been a single nation. So if you know differently why wont you divulge the information ?


 By the way I did find a good job that I am now retired from on an extremely large pension. So why should I work just to keep some lazy muslim in welfare so they can murder my family.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 Yes Israel is a country covered by international laws that means it can defend aggressively against muslim attacks. Freedom fighters don't fire illegal weapons at children in another nation to terrorise their parents into leaving so the terrorists can steal the land. Israel did not invade anywhere and you cant find any evidence to support this claim. How many billions of Hindu's lived in India when the muslims went on one of their rampages and tried to wipe them out from the lands they stole in 1945 ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...







 No the invaders are the muslims who never lived on the land from 1099 until 1875. They are the ones who should vacate the land and move. Then vacate all the other lands they have stolen by force until they are all squashed into the empty quarter. Then the west should build a wall 100 feet high around arabia so they can never get back out


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






 Wrong again as I live in the UK and so see islam first hand in all its violent glory


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Deflection and posturing...

Empty air...

Translation: I cannot supply a name for this so-called preexisting 'nation', so I'll simply go on the attack and draw attention away from my shortcomings...

Or try, anyway...


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Silly, silly little Muslim...


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 26, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


You can always _*try*_...


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 26, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


E2L (ESL)...

Or E*3*L...


----------



## montelatici (Oct 26, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




Nothing so-called about it.  Palestine was at different times a Roman Province, Arab Caliphate, Latin (Christian) Kingdom,  and part of the Ottoman Empire.  The people living there did not change, just the rulers.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Did I mention Muslims?

Fool!


----------



## Humanity (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Oh wow...

Is it senile dementia or are you just fucked in the head?

Your friends must love you down the pub! Do you do impressions as well?

Here, the description I gave several weeks ago. This time, make it your wallpaper so you don't forget!

_"Any person, Jewish or otherwise, whose support for the state of Israel reaches levels of extreme irrationality and potential insanity. Believes any action of any kind undertaken by Israel is politically and morally correct, regardless of objective evidence to the contrary, and believes any criticism of Israel, however mild or justified, to be motivated by anti-semitism (or self-loathing when made by anyone Jewish)."

Urban Dictionary: Zionut_


----------



## Humanity (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Says the zionut Islamophobe who has never even met a Muslim! 

Get lots of Muslims up on the moors do you?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 Why do you miss out Jewish kingdom is it because you cant bring yourself to admit that it was originally Jewish ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






 Then who am I racist towards, and provide the evidence if you can. Refusal or failure will just show that you are a LIAR.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 And they only exist in your fantasy world where Jews were never invented and only muslims had control.


 Once again you resort to disinformation because you are losing the argument and making yourself look a complete idiot.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 Plenty in the Steel works when I was there for 32 years. And yes we do as they go up looking for sheep to kill right after Ramadan. We went through a spate of such attacks until the local muslim leaders where told that the farmers would be going out armed on the moors in future, and that any muslims found would be arrested and possibly deported.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Shit man... You must be in my "fantasy world" then because this....

"_support for the state of Israel reaches levels of extreme irrationality and potential insanity"
_
Sums you up perfectly you lunatic!

You see, if someone supports Israel the way you do with "extreme irrationality and potential insanity" how CAN it be disinformation?


----------



## Humanity (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Hav you got a link for any of that BS you freak?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Deflection and posturing... Empty air... Translation: I cannot supply a name for this so-called preexisting 'nation', so I'll simply go on the attack and draw attention away from my shortcomings... Or try, anyway...
> ...


Palestine was always a Region, but never, _*ever*_ a Nation.

As to the politically and militarily impotent and insignificant fleas who are actual descendants of long-term residents, they have been routinely slaughtered by Romans, the Caliphates, the Crusaders, the Ottomans and the British and French colonial Europeans, either in seizing the region or in smacking them down when they were hit with another wave of stupidity and rebelled.

As to the rag-tag mixture of the descendants of very recent migrants to the area, well, the less said about these knuckle-draggers, the better. They aren't a 'people', they're a plague of locusts, and ran like rabbits, when the Jews said 'boo' in 1948.

In general, Nature has de-selected them, they cause far more trouble than they're worth, and they need to pack up and leave, while they still can.

But - getting back to the original question - it would appear that you, too, cannot supply the name of this so-called 'all one country' that our colleague alluded to in his original.

The last time that so-called 'Palestine' (a punitive Roman Imperial label for the Jewish homeland, by thw way) was an autonomous self-ruling 'nation', it was called the Kingdom of Israel - alongside the closely related Kingdom of Judah, which also controlled part of that region.

Jewish Kingdoms - not Roman, nor Arab, nor Frankish, nor Turkish, nor British - but Jewish.

The old owners are back.

To stay, this time.

With the muscle to make it stick.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


where you were for 32 years?


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


If some people change, jews change.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


Simple you can not change the facts and figure. Because you people are confused and psycho.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Better for you this way, otherwise you can not digest truth.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


Israel is terrorist too.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


You should respect to those who accommodate you in their home and now you push them into camp who will trust jew in future. Not these Palestinian.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


well then what is your purpose just trying to implement wrong things.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


Look I am right. You are here to make noise.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


But you can not change the facts and figure by making noise. Please accept that muslim open the door of holy land for jew and I will say muslim were wrong and roman were right.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


Israel is also terrorist and killing innocent people, who actually open the holy land door for jews and now they are thinking that their elders made mistake and roman were right.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Ottoman Empire the msulim from Turkey. This region was administered from Damascus and Damascus was controlled by Turkey.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


phoney go home and have some rest please.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






 Because first you need to prove that there is extreme irrationality and potential insanity, and you are not qualified in that respect. Using such emotive language proves in fact that you are the one who is irrational and potentially insane, and you are trying to project this onto others.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






Have you any links for the last 138 requests made ?    If not you are in no position to be making any demands.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






 Steel industry that has just closed for good after 170 years of production. You can find our steel all over the world just look for Cargo Fleet on the girders.

*Bridge* *Location* *Year* *Notes*
Omdurman Bridge White Nile, Sudan 1926 Total length 2,012 feet (613 m), 7 fixed spans, one swing span, 3700 tons
Desouk Bridge Lower Nile, Egypt 1927 Total length 2,010 feet (610 m), 10 spans including 194 feet (59 m) swing span, 3800 tons
Tyne Bridge Newcastle, England 1928 Total length 1,254 feet (382 m), approximately 8,000 tons, (Road)
Alfred Beit Bridge South Africa 1929 Total length 1,515 feet (462 m), 1876 tons
Sydney Harbour Bridge Sydney, Australia 1932 Total length 3,770 feet (1,150 m), total weight of fabricated steelwork 51000, weight of steel in the arch 38000 tons
Grafton Bridge Grafton, NSW, Australia 1932 Total length 1,309 feet (399 m), (Road and Rail) It is a dual level Bascule Bridge, the upper deck carrying a roadway and the lower level carrying the rail line and foot bridge.
Lambeth Bridge London, England 1932 Total length 776 ft (237 m), 5 spans, 4620 tons,(Road)
Memorial Bridge, Bangkok Thailand 1932 Total length 755 feet (230 m), 1100 tons, (Road)
Khedive Ismail Bridge Cairo, Egypt 1933 Total length 1,250 feet (380 m), 3000 tons
Newport bridge Middlesbrough 1934 The central lifting span is 270 feet (82m) long and 66 feet (20m) wide, weighing 5400 tons (6993 metric tonnes); the towers are 182 feet (55m) high. The total weight is 8,000 tons.
Birchenough Bridge Zimbabwe 1935 1242 tons.
Storstrøm Bridge Denmark 1937 Total length 10,535 feet (3,211 m), 21000 tons, (Railway and Road)
Chien Tang River Bridge China 1937 Total length 3,840 feet (1,170 m), 16 equal spans, 4135 tons, (Railway and Road)
Silver Jubilee Bridge Runcorn and Widnes, England 1961 Total length 1,582 feet (482 m), (Road)


----------



## Humanity (Oct 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Because first you need to prove that there is extreme irrationality and potential insanity



Read your posts you freak...

Point proven!!!!


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 And no arab muslims in sight as they were bitter enemies of the Ottomans


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 I am home, I am not in a boiler room like you slaving away because the handler is stood over me with a whip


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Because first you need to prove that there is extreme irrationality and potential insanity
> ...






As I sais you are not qualified to make that prognosis, meaning that you are showing signs of being delusional


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 Says which official body ?  Even the ICC has told you muslims that Israel does not have a case to answer unlike hamas.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 It is not their home they did not start arriving until 1875 after the Jews had made the land fer4tile again.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 No to tell the truth and educate people about the evils of islam. As Erdogan said there are no peaceful muslims there are just muslims


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







No you are wrong and you know it as the muslims started to arrive in 1875 to steal Jewish lands again, only this time the Jews fought back and the muslims did not like it


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 27, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 It is you changing the facts because your imam tells you to do so. The fact is the muslims have no legal claim to the land and should be evicted. Just as they should be evicted from Pakistan, Somalia, morocco, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, iran, Iraq etc. and sent back to the Arabian peninsular.

 Why wont you accept muslims words for the massacres of Jews and Christians in the holy land over the last 1400 years.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 27, 2015)

How much longer will those Zionists in Israel allow the Palestinian land thieving squatters to remain?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 27, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Ah, so, then, it wasn't really a 'country'...

Merely an unincorporated 'region' administered from various locales on behalf of various Islamic Grand Poobahs in the centuries after they stole the land...

Got it...


----------



## montelatici (Oct 27, 2015)

Actually Christian rule for nearly 200 years, moron.  The only recent thieves are the European Jews.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Anyone who reads your zionut rantings is "qualified"!


----------



## Humanity (Oct 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Where did you make that one up from?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Actually Christian rule for nearly 200 years, moron.  The only recent thieves are the European Jews.


Who merely stole it back from _earlier_ thieves... fun, ain't it?


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


phoney you are rubbish and you will never learn and how silly you are that out of 1400 there were harmony for 800 years until Israeli jew destroy that peace.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 28, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Christian rule for nearly 200 years, moron.  The only recent thieves are the European Jews.
> ...



How can Europeans "steal something back" that was never theirs and on another continent?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Actually Christian rule for nearly 200 years, moron.  The only recent thieves are the European Jews.







 And the Jews ruled for 2,000 years idiot


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 28, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 According to islamonazi propaganda that is based on LIES.

 Explain this map of massacres by muslims then


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 28, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






 What debate as you just spout islamionazi propaganda as if it was fact


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Because they came from that continent as slaves

 You know like the south African blacks came from America when they could afford to


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Christian rule for nearly 200 years, moron.  The only recent thieves are the European Jews.
> ...



Actually they only ruled for around 400 - 500 years: Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


 Each Temple was ~400 years.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 28, 2015)

328 years actually.


c. 1050-1010: The Israelites establish a kingdom, first under Saul (c.1050-1010) and then under David (c.1010-970)



c. 970: David's son Solomon becomes king. He builds the Temple in Jerusalem



c. 931: After Solomon's death, Israel divides into two kingdoms: Judah in the south, Israel in the north



722: The northern kingdom of Israel is dstroyed by the Assyrians

TimeMaps


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2015)

How does that fit with this?  They only ruled from when they established a Kingdom 1050 until ??597?  -- afterwards they were ruled by other powers other than 164-63.  Nowhere near 2000 years of rule being claimed.

TimeMaps

*Timeline of Ancient Israel*


c. 1300-1200 BC: The Israelites enter the land of Canaan: the age of the Judges starts
c. 1050-1010: The Israelites establish a kingdom, first under Saul (c.1050-1010) and then under David (c.1010-970)
c. 970: David's son Solomon becomes king. He builds the Temple in Jerusalem
c. 931: After Solomon's death, Israel divides into two kingdoms: Judah in the south, Israel in the north
722: The northern kingdom of Israel is dstroyed by the Assyrians
c. 620: A major religious revival takes place in the southern kingdom of Judah
597-582: Judah and Jerusalem are destroyed in a series of invasions by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The leading men of Judah are taken into exile in Babylon
538: The Persian king Cyrus allows the exiles back, and encourages them to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem
164: The Jews revolt against the Seleucid kings under the leadership of the Maccabbees brothers
63: The Romans conquer Judaea and soon install the family of Herod the Great as rulers of Judaea
66-73 and 132-5 AD: Two great Jewish rebellions against the Romans end in the destruction of the Temple (70) and the expulsion of the Jews from near Jerusalem (135)


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 28, 2015)

The Timeline problem...
If a King ruled 1 day that day was considered a "year".
10 kings could rule one after the other within a solar year and Scripture, ever respectful as possible of kingship, would not diminish the honor of a King by saying a king ruled for less than a year; that year would thus be referred to as 10 "years".


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> The Timeline problem...
> If a King ruled 1 day that day was considered a "year".
> 10 kings could rule one after the other within a solar year and Scripture, ever respectful as possible of kingship, would not diminish the honor of a King by saying a king ruled for less than a year; that year would thus be referred to as 10 "years".




I'm going by historical record, not scripture and semantics.  Israeli's didn't rule 2000 years.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 28, 2015)

As I said, there's a timline problem.
There's no definitive answer.
That's why secular historians disagree.


----------



## Humanity (Oct 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



Nice deflection Phoney!

You got a link for your BS or not?

NOT I suspect!!


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > The Timeline problem...
> ...




SO?  What does it matter how long Israel ruled in relation to the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians?


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Ask the person who thought it important enough to falsely claim 2000 years.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Oh jeeze!  Can we get back to the subject as to who are & who are not indigenous Palestinians?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Jews worldwide are (1) the descendants of the Jews of the Holy Land and (2) converts and admixtures from other regions.

It is theirs by virtue of their status as both genetic and spiritual inheritors of ancient Israel and Judea.

You can argue the point until you're blue in the face.

However, the blue-steel of IDF gun-barrels trumps your blue every time.

Don't like it?

Tough shit.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 28, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Because Monty says the Jews were never there then says they were.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



That's how you interpreted my posting.
I never said such a thing...ever.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



That's part and parcel of the subject.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Of course you didn't - you weren't the person who made the claim.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 28, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



European Zionists that invaded Palestine had never been in Palestine.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



HUH???  European Zionists DID NOT "invade Palestine."  They were invited by Israel.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



There wasn't an Israel then.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Oh yes there was an Israel when those "European Zionists" came to Israel.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



You're correct, their ancestors were.
Can you somehow lay out the Tactical Details of that invasion?
How many trucks, tanks, pistols, machine guns?
Where did it start?

You also have not addressed why their "brothers" come to their aid.

In other words, try translating your bullshit history into discreet steps.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



Nope.  There was a "Palestine"...


----------



## montelatici (Oct 28, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Of course the European Zionists invaded Palestine, much like the Muslims are invading Europe today.  In any case when the European Zionists began the invasion  there was no Israel.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 28, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...




1.  No the ancestors of the Europeans that invaded Palestine were, interestingly, Europeans.

2. The Zionist European invasion of Palestine was simply an invasion, much like the current Muslim invasion of Europe. Very few tactics, just a strategy whose outcome was the dispossession and eviction of the people living in Palestine.

3. There are sites that recount the number of and type of weapons brought to Palestine by the European Zionists.

4. It started when the first Zionists landed in Palestine.  Probably Jaffa.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 29, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 Still waiting for your 139 links that you refuse to give, why is that idiot could it be that you dont have any and are just LYING


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 There was no arab muslim nations either so what is your point ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Nope as YOU islamonazi's were telling them to go back to Israel

 What invasion

 LINKS

They came overland from Egypt on the invite of the Ottomans


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



You're Jew hatred is so intense you reject the Roman conquest of Israel; your own history.
Shame; your Muslim squeeze must be really hot.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 I made the claim as the Jews did in fact have sovereignty over the land of Judaea and Samaria for 2000 years. The arab muslims held it for just 22 years


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...





 Arab muslims that invaded Palestine had never lived there either


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...





 Nor was there any arab muslim states ...........................


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 But not an arab muslim state isn't that right, just a place name on the map that did not have any defined borders


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 29, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


please give some detail as well.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 29, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


Since when are you interested in non-Islamic propaganda?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 29, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 What more detail do you want as the detail is there on the map. Dates and places of islamonazi massacres of Jews over the last 1400 years


----------



## montelatici (Oct 29, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



When did I reject the Roman conquest of Israel?  The Romans conquered Israel. 
How do any of the facts I presented, in response to your questions, imply "Jew hatred"?


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




And before this Palestine you speak of, there was Israel.

TimeMaps


----------



## montelatici (Oct 29, 2015)

At one time there was Atlantis.  So what?  

At one time there was Rajasthan, I doubt that the people currently living in the area would approve of the Roma returning after they left in the 11th century AD a mere thousand years ago.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...




That doesn't mean a thing.  Israel had long ceased to exist as a nation.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 So did the arab muslim nation that held the land for 22 years, yet you give it more right to exist today why is this ?


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Palestine NEVER was a nation or country.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 29, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



So what?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 29, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 WRONG as the treaty does not mention Palestine at all so how could it be placed into international law. And again you use a report from a muslim that alters treaties and invents negotiations so he can fool idiots into believing the Palestinian lie. His work has been proven false and to be based on untruths, conjecture and LIES.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


This is wrong. If this is the case then all jews should be killed by Iranian Msulim and in other muuslim countries.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 30, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 They very nearly were, and it was only the ones that had been taken as slaves by the Romans that kept the faith alive. Don't forget that 16 million Jews were massacred between 1920 to 1945 by the Nazis, communists and muslims. So any comment now on the truth of islamonazi massacres over the last 1400 years ?


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



I wonder if any Palestinian supporters condemn this.  Oh yeah, right.

Killings for Islam


----------



## montelatici (Oct 30, 2015)

MJB has resorted to maniacal bloggers as his source of information.  How quaint.  How about we start linking to anti-Jew sites run by the same kind of maniacs? Get serious you nutcase.


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB has resorted to maniacal bloggers as his source of information.  How quaint.  How about we start linking to anti-Jew sites run by the same kind of maniacs? Get serious you nutcase.



Well golly gee Monte.  Do you not agree that the overwhelming numbers of murders in this world today by terrorists are by Muslims?


----------



## montelatici (Oct 30, 2015)

*Don't know about the world.*

*"Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America"*

*Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America*


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> *Don't know about the world.*
> 
> *"Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America"*
> 
> *Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America*







And that is the only place that sees terrorist attacks ?


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 31, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Look german don't kill even 6 million jew and Muslim never have war with jew in recent history. It is jew who started war by invading holly land.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 31, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 No Germany killed 12 million "untermensch" that included 6 million Jews. The arab muslims have been at war with the Jews since 635C.E. when the tribe at medina refused to accept mo'mad the unholy as their prophet and worship at his feet. The last war was last summer when hamas murdered two Jewish boys and defiled their bodies and so escalated the violence


----------



## MJB12741 (Oct 31, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...




HUH??? "Jews invaded the holy land"?  So tell us, how thery treating you on the funny farm?


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 31, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Look german don't kill even 6 million jew *and Muslim never have war with jew in recent history*. ...


See, palistanians lost nothing, and our honorable P F Tinmore "said" that too.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 31, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Someone's not been reading their Bible...(hint: Joshua, allegedly)


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2015)

montelatici said:


> *Don't know about the world.*
> 
> *"Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America"*
> 
> *Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America*


Speaking of maniacal blogs, it seems odd that the Islamo-spokesbeard resorts to cutting and pasting from the Internet tabloid "global research".

So tell us, Habib, about the extraordinary measures taken across the globe to confront Islamic terrorism <----- note "Islamic" preceding the term terrorism. 

Are those measures employed to combat those groups of heavily armed, radical Lutherans we read about?


----------



## Challenger (Oct 31, 2015)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > *Don't know about the world.*
> ...





Hollie said:


> Speaking of maniacal blogs, it seems odd that the Islamo-spokesbeard resorts to cutting and pasting from the Internet tabloid "global research".



The figures are based on FBI and DHS data


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 31, 2015)

Challenger said:


> The figures are based on FBI and DHS data


Ain't those two more concerned about preppers, consitutionalists and general cash-paying individuals?


----------



## Rehmani (Nov 1, 2015)

docmauser1 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Look german don't kill even 6 million jew *and Muslim never have war with jew in recent history*. ...
> ...


I means, jew always play propaganda war and create falls story like as they are doing against Palestinian as well. Like jew said German killed 6 million jew not a single mass grave discovered yet in Germany. Jews use this falls claim to win the sympathy in the wast but now time is proving that claim was wrong.


----------



## Rehmani (Nov 1, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


To me they are terrorist and invader, if they are not then why they are using all sort of weapon against empty handed men,women and children and killing them.


----------



## Rehmani (Nov 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Phoney is lire, Jew never got killed in mass numbers in history.


----------



## Phoenall (Nov 1, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 When was islam invented again, when did mo'mad fly on the horse, when was the al aqsa mosque built.   You want false stories then ret=y these for starters.


----------



## Phoenall (Nov 1, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...







 Because they are not empty handed as proven by the numbers of attacks in recent weeks. A rock is a weapon that can kill just as easily as a nullet can. If they did not use violence then they would not be killed


----------



## Phoenall (Nov 1, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...






 Only in your fantasy world that has mental afflicted persons riding horses in the sky to a mosque that was not built for 40 years after.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 1, 2015)

Rehmani,  et al,

Yes, this is a principle denial by some.




And there will always be some that believe in the denial doctrine.  There are still people that believe that extra terrestrials have landed on Earth.  Just as their are people who believe in the flat Earth.  There are people who believe in ghosts, paranormal activity, witches, and the theory of Atlantis.   There are all kinds of belief structures out there.  And there will always be the extremes that argue about the merits they believe in.  There are even those that are scientists that argue about their individual views.

AND there will alway be the Holocaust Denial and disbelievers and conspiracy theorists.  BUT, very distinct from denial and distortion is misuse of the actual facts, in such a way --- that which is deliberately intended to setup a deception. 



Rehmani said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

All good propaganda looks and sounds authentic, trying to appeal to that which you are predisposed to believe.  And there are some materials that are written such that, they sound like one thing _(done intentionally)_ yet say something else _(the purposeful deceptions)_.  You will often see people point to the League of Nation Covenant, or the Treaty of Lausanne, as evidence for --- this or that.  Yet it says nothing of the sort.  It was an extrapolation made beyond the language expressed.

Yes, there are no mass graves at Dachau, the first of all the Concentration Camps, a truth?  That does not mean that 238,000 prisoners where not processed and cremated there.  From the Presidential Library of General of the Army Eisenhower, you can seen more than 20 Special Reports or Letters pertaining to the subject of Concentration Camps.  The Report, "Dachau," prepared by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Section, Seventh Army, undated (71 pages)[World War II Participants and Contemporaries Papers, Hoffman Steve: Dachau, and Porter Harold: Dachau; NAID #12009126] stated in part:




And, when you speak of Mass Graves, it also depends on your definition.  When I was stationed in Munich, many years ago, I saw this monument, and several others set in remembrance of those that perished at Dachau.




So, there are ways of telling the truth, yet telling a lie.  Of all the Mass Graves I saw in Germany, I think this one was the best.  The Germans did it up very well.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 1, 2015)

Rehmani, Phoenall,  et al,

Yes, the State of the Liar!



Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


*(OBSERVATION)*

*EU adopts measure outlawing Holocaust denial*
*By Dan Bilefsky  New York Times
Published: Thursday, April 19, 2007
BRUSSELS — *The European Union approved legislation Thursday that would make denying the Holocaust punishable by jail sentences, but would also give countries across the 27-member bloc the option of not enforcing the law if such a prohibition did not exist in their own laws.  ...
The legislation calls for jail terms of as much as three years for "intentional conduct" that incites violence or hatred against a person's "race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin." The same punishment would apply to those who incite violence by "denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...





Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Of course, dear. Keep that in mind when you board a commercial airliner. The extraordinary security measures are in place to keep you safe from those radical Lutherans


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 1, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Rehmani, Phoenall,  et al,
> 
> Yes, the State of the Liar!
> 
> ...


The same punishment would apply to those who incite violence by "denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."​
So, a lot of Israel's supporters should be going to jail.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 1, 2015)

Hollie,  et al,

Oh yes, and I'm even more worried about the new emerging threat.



Hollie said:


> Of course, dear. Keep that in mind when you board a commercial airliner. The extraordinary security measures are in place to keep you safe from those radical Lutherans


*(COMMENT)*

Of course you have hear about the clandestine but Radicalized Mouseketeers Movement (CR2M).  The threat of the 21st Century.  Those improved security measures are all that stands between us and those Mouse-loms (PBUT).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741 (Nov 1, 2015)

Rehmani said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani said:
> ...


----------



## MJB12741 (Nov 1, 2015)

If the Palestinians keep acting like Palestinians, israel will have no other option than to treat them like Hussein had to.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## Phoenall (Nov 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Rehmani, Phoenall,  et al,
> ...


----------



## Phoenall (Nov 1, 2015)

Why is that as they don't do what you claim. Where is your evidence of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Where are the transcripts of international court cases of prominent Jews on these charges. Or are you LYING again on the commands of your imam because the Jews are gaining popularity around the world while the muslims are losing face and support


----------



## MJB12741 (Nov 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Why is that as they don't do what you claim. Where is your evidence of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Where are the transcripts of international court cases of prominent Jews on these charges. Or are you LYING again on the commands of your imam because the Jews are gaining popularity around the world while the muslims are losing face and support[/QUOTE
> 
> It is true that the Muslims, including the Palestinians, have united Christians & Jews like never before.  Praise be to Allah & his follwers.


----------



## montelatici (Nov 1, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> If the Palestinians keep acting like Palestinians, israel will have no other option than to treat them like Hussein had to.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!



LOL.  The murderous MJ just can't keep his hope for the mass murder of Christians and Muslims in Palestine by his Jewish heroes hidden.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


So..... my little muhammedan, what a shame you can't "honor" kill me to appease your limp, islamo-ego.

Yet, for all your islamo-whining, it's been observed many times, by many commentators:


That the Islamiist states refuse to accept Pal'istinian refugees;


That Israel's succor toward the Pal'istinians exceeds that of all the world's Islamist states put together;


That Muhammedans in Israel proper enjoy far more rights, are better protected from islamics than the residents of the Pal'istinian zones;


And that the Islamist states of the Middle East have made it mortally dangerous to be a Jew anywhere in that region _except_ Israel.
You're best left to your cock fascination.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 1, 2015)

*Moderation Message:

Too many violations -- Too far from the OP topic. If you just want to skirmish -- than do it in the FZone. 
If you want to start a new thread -- do so.. 

Closed.. *


----------

